November 21, 2008 1:30 pm at 1:30 pm #1217786
squeak, if you notice, I already said I didnt believe it was a way to force things on women. I’m just glad I am not satmar (or any other sect that doesnt let women learn gemara) because I dont know if I have enough faith in men for that. I have complete faith in Hashem, but humans are fallible and succumb to bad things. Religion (all religions, not specifically Judaism) has been used to browbeat women and slaves and other people forever. If I couldnt learn where my laws were coming from, I couldnt keep things with a full heart – how would I be able to seek out the fraud????
Intellegent – as for the equality in a marriage – equal does not mean exactly the same. It means the end result is the same. 4+2=6 but so is 5+1 and 3+3…there are different ways to arrive at the same point. So, with the deaf/blind analogy, you teach them both to communicate, each in the way that makes sense for them. It doesnt mean they are less “equal,” just that they arrive there at a different way. Does that make sense? Maybe some people are content to being in a marriage where they are not equal partners, but I wouldnt. I need my husband to know that he can lean on me for strength when he needs to, the same way I lean on him when I need to.November 21, 2008 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #1217787
will hill, just a short posting as it is erev shabbos…Read my (and jewish feminist) posting again. The Perisha CLEARLY states that a woman CAN learn Torah shebaal peh if she initiates it. The perisha is not an inconsequential Possek.(on the Tur, if you are not familiar with him)
Secondly, you keep on saying it is IMPERMISSIBLE. But this is the whole point. If it would be IMPERMISSIBLE- translated “Ossur”- why doesn’t the gemoro, the rambam ,the shulchan aruch and others write simply “ossur lelamed es bittoi torah”?
They do not and this is clearly because it is not an “issur”, just a manner of conduct. I am not minimizing the ma-amar chazal and the Rishonim’s and acharonim’s words but it is not an outright “issur” like -chas vecholilo- chazzir or chillul shabbes,
Because it is not an outright issur, people have found reasons for cirucmventing it. Obviously, you don’t agree and this is fine but others feel different. Remember that ,originally, the Bais Yaakov movement was vehementy opposed by many gedolim in Poland and Russia.Ultimately ,it was a brocho (although, from what you hear from Israel, it seems that elitism has arrived there too) and now it is the flagship of chareidi Yiddishkeit.November 22, 2008 9:41 pm at 9:41 pm #1217788intellegentMember
makes sense, and that is exactly what I meant. As far as my understanding goes there are some who would like not only the sum (6) to be “equal” but also the 5, 1 (can’t remember the word for it, it’s late at night for me.) So I am not saying that women are less necessary than men. The Torah puts a lot of value on the woman. I still believe that women and men are completely different and have different roles. There is nothing to talk about!November 23, 2008 2:39 am at 2:39 am #1217789
Intellegent, I think we agree, but are slightly off on semantics! I dont think anyone in this thread actually thinks women are equal in terms of WOMAN=MAN, just equal in terms of rights. And hey, I am NOT clamoring to be part of a minyan…I personally am very thankful to be a woman and not a man (in this day and age).November 23, 2008 1:05 pm at 1:05 pm #1217790
MaRan Eliashiv and MaRan Yosef have both ruled that included in teaching women the laws that apply to them is teaching women any Gemmarra that deals with halakhas that apply to women. Thus the list of exclusion of what a woman could learn B’Iyun is quite small, and the in the end if a woman were to learn all of those b’iyun my guess would be that she would be far ahead of your average Yeshiva Bochur, and even many Kollel learners.November 23, 2008 2:09 pm at 2:09 pm #1217791tzippiMember
Re mekubal. That may be true as far as the amount of knowledge goes, but not as far as the women’s skill in taking apart a blatt gemora. That latter point may be the crux for some people.November 23, 2008 2:14 pm at 2:14 pm #1217792
tzippi, I’m not 100% sure what your post meant but do you mean that men learn gemara better than women? Part of that is the education system – start a girl learning gemara at 10 and see how well she progresses!
I have quite a few friends who can shteig with the best of them!November 23, 2008 2:27 pm at 2:27 pm #1217793
mekubal, where is your claimed psak of Maran Eliyashev recorded? I’ve heard the precise opposite.November 23, 2008 5:33 pm at 5:33 pm #1217794
The question came up in a Shiur about a year ago, that he gave at a Semicha ceremony for those of us who completed Hilkhot Niddah and Mikvah. The precise question was could a Rav review with his wife the Hilkhot of Niddah including the relevant Gemmaras so that she could help as a go between in the case of Shailot to save the woman asking embarrassment. That was his answer. For R’ Yosef you can find it in Yalkut Yosef Hilkhot Limud Torah. Considering that R’ Eliashiv has repeatedly referred to R’ Yosef as the Posek HaDor, that in itself constitutes a psak. When dealing with words of such Gedolim I would say it is better to leave to them and aside form that AYLOR.
Other supporting evidence would be the Ben Ish Hai, in Rav Pealim and also in Laws of Women. In laws of women he states that it is a necessity that a woman learn the relevant Torah SheBaal Peh as well as possible.
R’ Yehuda Deri reiterated the same, as well as gave a psak that it is a learning husbands job to see that his wife has the requisite knowledge in the above during a shiur at Yeshivas Toras Yisrael.
Chareidi Midrashot in E”Y teach basic gemmarra skills to the women in third year(yes I know third year has been essentially cancelled this year unless one can prove they will be a teacher) however they quote as their Rabbinic authorites R’ Eliashiv, R’ Auerbach, R’ Styman and the Rebbes of Gur and Belz. Somehow I doubt this would be going on without the support of these Gedolim.
That may be the case. It is a point that overall to me seems irrelevant, and something I have no desire to argue.November 23, 2008 6:10 pm at 6:10 pm #1217795
Then we seem to be in agreement. We both agree that Maran was referring to “relevant” issues. (And in any event, in this case referring to her husband discussing the relevant portions with her — not her going off to some Gemora school.)November 23, 2008 7:52 pm at 7:52 pm #1217796
wow, I stand hunbled here of the erudite words on this site. I am thankful to “mekubal” for his clarifications on women’s learning. Clearly, many of the Poskim mentioned have ‘adapted’ the learning to today’s conditions. This is clearly because the original maa-mar chazal was not an explicit “issur” (as mentioend earlier) and hence, one can adapt it to present conditions, as is actually doen in many other situtations.
Well ,for now, every one will follow the “hora-ah’ that he feels comfortable with. Actually, we may very well see “lehagdil torah ulha-adiroh”.
( I am not sure that Joseph hasn’t changed his mind after “mekubal’s words)November 23, 2008 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm #1217797
rob, mekubal seems to agree with myself and the others.November 23, 2008 8:13 pm at 8:13 pm #1217798
rabbiofberlin, thanks for the kind words. The research is partially, but not entirely, my own. They are, however, entirely my own words in terms of phrasing. (And you’re right about the Talmud Yerushalmi, that bit I never learned myself!) Looking through the sources I posted, I would say that I personally learned about half of them, which I think is pretty good, though I wish I had had time to go through everything. (And there were additional sources that I learned and sources that I did not learn that I just didn’t add to the post because it was already getting too long. Instead of listing every source I had learned and ignoring those I hadn’t, I chose the ones that I felt were most relevant and compelling.) I first learned many of these sources about two years ago when I spent a great deal of time, both in school and independently, researching this exact topic. We had a unit about it in school, and since the topic was close to home, I took it as a jumping-off point and continued to do independent research after the papers and tests were graded and we had moved on to the next subject. Many of the girls in my class felt that the unit was pointless (“Well OBVIOUSLY we’re allowed to learn Gemara, otherwise what are we doing in this class???”) but I really enjoyed delving into the source material. This thread compelled me to go back and revisit many of the sources I hadn’t looked at in two years, so Joseph, you should know that a woman undertook Gemara study on your account!
Will Hill, I respect your opinion and R’ Eliezer is just as venerated as Ben Azzai. I also see that you would think it hypocritical to discuss the sugyas with me in depth, and I respect that as well. However, I must tell you that I am insulted that you assumed that I had not learned any of the mekorot I posted on my own but rather pulled them from a database. As you see above, I did learn some of them, but no matter. Whether you thought me incapable of such sophisticated study or simply could not conceive of the idea of a woman learning Gemara in this way, I don’t know. Just try to be a little more considerate next time.November 24, 2008 12:36 am at 12:36 am #1217799Will HillParticipant
jewish02, actually everyone paskens with R’ Eliezer and not Ben Azzai — as highly venerated as both are. THAT is the bottom line. As much as that bothers you. Anyways I’m glad you partially admitted to utilizing others research without attribution.November 24, 2008 6:51 am at 6:51 am #1217800
I agree with you and others with one caveat. Women can study to the level of Moreh Horah. Also we must recognize that the term “women’s issues” covers a large portion of Torah SheBaal Pe. For instance just the Shulchan Arukh you have all of Orach Chaim, well over half of Yoreh Deah, and all of Even HaEzer. If you take the associated Gemmarrahs, there are more tractates involved than most people will ever master.
However I do agree that organized education in that sense is problematic. However it has been done here in Israel at B”Y Sems under the auspices of the above mentioned Gedolim… However, I will leave what happens at one of their schools up to those very Gedolim as I am sure that they are better able to establish the proper boundaries than I am.November 24, 2008 9:39 am at 9:39 am #1217801
“everyone paskens with R’Eliezer” Sorry, but that is simply incorrect.
“I’m glad you partially admitted to utilizing others [sic] research without attribution” Fine, next time I will provide the exact link. It doesn’t seem to bother you when others here post articles taken verbatim from a source without giving attribution.November 24, 2008 3:34 pm at 3:34 pm #1217802
BTW-jewishfeminist-your source from nedarim 35 is problematic…as there are two different “girsaot”- (versions) of this mishnah and the prepondarent version just says “to teach his SONS Torah’ and does not include daughters.November 24, 2008 5:49 pm at 5:49 pm #1217803
The Nedarim source is one of the ones I did not learn on my own. The following information is quoted from the article Talmud Study by Women by R’ Yehudah Henkin.
“A source for permitting the teaching of Scripture to women, on the other hand, would seem to be the Mishnah in Nedarim 35b, ‘One whose vow prohibits him from receiving benefit from another, [the other] should not teach him Scripture, but teaches his [minor] sons (banav) and daughters Scripture.’ There is a variant reading that omits the words ‘and daughters,’ but Tosafot and Rosh in 36b wrote that even so, ‘banav’ in the plural means all his children, including daughters. This is also the opinion of Ran and the pseudo-Rashi commentary to Nedarim, and of Ri”tz as quoted in Shitah Mekubetzet.”
Since I haven’t learned this source myself, I can’t speak for which version is more common. You noted the one that omits “bnotav” as the “preponderant version” but R’ Henkin calls it a “variant reading”. Even so, as you see from what he wrote, it’s possible to use it as a support by interpreting “banav” as “children” rather than “sons”. In Hebrew, mixed groups are always referred to in the male form, so I don’t see a problem with this interpretation.November 24, 2008 7:05 pm at 7:05 pm #1217804
Jewishfeminist..I will review the source again because I did not notice Tosafot,Rosh and the other meforshim mentioned.
I have great admiration for Rav Henkin but I daresay that his view that “banav’ means BOTH males and females is just speculaiton, as if the gemoro wanted to mean sons ONLY, they would have to choose the exact same words.
Actually, the reason why the meforshim insist that it is “banav’ only is derived from the gemorro a page later that talks about teaching the sons to read in the Torah, and this is, manifestly, only for boys only (unless you say that this gemoro predated the gemoro in megillah that disdaloowed women to have an alyah)November 24, 2008 9:19 pm at 9:19 pm #1217805
But that’s exactly the issue- that the same words are used to describe a male group as would be used to describe a female group. That’s why I never understood the Gemara that quotes the Shema “v’limadetem otam et b’neichem” and goes on to say “bneichem v’lo bnoteichem” as why would the Torah say “et bnoteichem”? This would exclude males. And it would be unnecessary to write “bneichem v’gam bnoteichem.” Since we know the Torah has no extra language, the natural conclusion is that the same word, b’neichem, would be used whether the Torah meant exclusively boys or both boys and girls.
Note that I’m not trying to bring this as a proof that women can learn Torah. I’m simply pointing out that based on the wording, it’s impossible to draw a definitive conclusion, so it makes no sense to try to use it as a disproof either.November 24, 2008 10:37 pm at 10:37 pm #1217806
to jewish feminist…if you (or someone close to you) can check the actual gemoro , you will see that the ones who only cite “bonov” rely upon the actual reason for this which is quoted later in the gemoro, i.e. learning to read the torah, which they iterpret as actually reading in the torah and this would exclude females.November 24, 2008 11:24 pm at 11:24 pm #1217807oomisParticipant
“Girls do not have the intellectual stability and are, therefore, unable to make profound inquries with a sharp mind and appreciate the depth of the Torah. It is possible thay by using their own minds, they will transgress the Torah.
Tur (Yoreh Deah 246, 15)
Most women’s minds are not geared toward being taught, but if she had begun to study properly herself, not making Torah into foolishness, she is no longer like most women and she is rewarded…
Both (and really most, if not all) the sources cited, were from a time when women did not go to Yeshivah, and basically knew nothing except possibly how to daven from a siddur. They learned the laws of Taharas Hamishpacha, how to kasher meat, bensch licht and take hafrasha when they would bake challah, but other than that, learning was done only by males. There were some notable exceptions in Jewish history, but primarily women did not learn. Nowadays, there is no frum woman who does not go to Yeshivah. I would venture to say that women know Chumash, Navi, Jewish History and Hashkafa as well as and better than most men, because most men do not continue to learn Nach when they reach the age of learning Talmud. It is erroneous to believe that women are not geared towards learning. That is a generalization. SOME women (like SOME men) may not be able to grasp Talmudic concepts, but then again, many of them absolutely can, particularly if they would be taught those concepts at the same age that the boys are first taught them.November 25, 2008 12:48 am at 12:48 am #1217809
ahh, the good ‘ole days…November 25, 2008 3:03 am at 3:03 am #1217810BogenParticipant
oomis, The quoted meforshim are 100% Toras Emes. As true today, as the day it was written.November 25, 2008 4:25 pm at 4:25 pm #1217811
bogen- just a simple quesiton : do you believe that ALL the Piskei halacha of the past apply today?November 25, 2008 4:59 pm at 4:59 pm #1217812jphoneMember
I know its not Adar, but this entire thread (addmittedly I have not read 90% of the posts) got to me to thinking. We could do away with the shidduch crisis if we allowed guys to learn with girls and date chavrusas. The 1st day of zman “tumult” would probably yield lots of dates and many shidduchim. I can see it now. “Your style of learning is not for me, but you are.” (I wonder if YWN would still allow pictures of the tumult to be posted)
Reminds me a little of the Misnhe that described Tu B’Av.November 25, 2008 5:16 pm at 5:16 pm #1217813
jphone- this is the BEST posting I have seen in at least a month! Kol hakavod!November 25, 2008 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm #1217814squeakParticipant
jphone – that idea will happen in Adar ShlishiNovember 25, 2008 6:02 pm at 6:02 pm #1217815
oomis, The quoted meforshim are 100% Toras Emes. As true today, as the day it was written.
Just out of curiousity, is it at all possible that the statements made by the Torah Temimah, the Tur (or any other gadol for that matter) could be influenced by their environment, their community, their location and their own upbringing and personal biases?
The WolfNovember 25, 2008 6:31 pm at 6:31 pm #1217816
Absolutely not. With all due respect, it takes a great deal of ignorance to ask such a question.November 25, 2008 6:44 pm at 6:44 pm #1217817
Absolutely not. With all due respect, it takes a great deal of ignorance to ask such a question.
Please tell me that you’re kidding and that I am dense and missing the sarcasm.
The WolfNovember 25, 2008 6:55 pm at 6:55 pm #1217818
Please tell me your kidding that you think it is possible that Gedolei Yisroel ZTV’L, the biggest of the big — encompassing a greatness that neither of us can fathom, — issued a psak halacha or statement based upon their ”personal biases.”
You are better than that.November 25, 2008 7:01 pm at 7:01 pm #1217819
OK, for the sake of simplifying the argument, let’s strike “personal biases” from my question. How about answering it now…
Just out of curiousity, is it at all possible that the statements made by the Torah Temimah, the Tur (or any other gadol for that matter) could be influenced by their environment, their community, their location and their own upbringing?
The WolfNovember 25, 2008 7:09 pm at 7:09 pm #1217820NobodyMember
Please boys and girls don’t in any way allow this thread to go down the road of anything whatsoever personal against, or even in the direction of, G’dolei Yisroel, Rebbes and Tzadikim past and present.
Don’t go there.November 25, 2008 7:23 pm at 7:23 pm #1217821
I’m not saying anything “against” the gedolim, personal or otherwise. However, I believe that statements are not made in a vacuum. Whenever *anyone* makes a statement (from the highest gadol down through the lowliest person and even down to me) they are influence by their community, the times in which they live and the culture that they live in.
The WolfNovember 25, 2008 7:40 pm at 7:40 pm #1217822
nobody and joseph and bogen…..
Why does any real question about Poskim and Rabbonim and Gedolim of this dor or any past dor suddenly make the questioner an apikoros and a rosho? I just don’t get it. The Wolf and I (and others) have asked a sensible question. Do Piskei halocho never change/ Are they ever influenced by customs of the day ? We have the greatest respect for all Poskim and Gedolim but why can’t we ask any questions??
Is anyone so scared of any question that you cannot bear it? Sorry- I don’t get it.November 25, 2008 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #1217823gavra_at_workParticipant
How about the “recent daf (Kiddushin 29b)” argument over Kollel between Shmuel & Rav Yochanan, where the Gemorah learns both were influenced by their area? How about any “ha lan V’Ha Lehu”?
Just a thought.November 25, 2008 8:32 pm at 8:32 pm #1217824
The Tur and all the meforshim we are discussing ARE G-D’s ANGELS. The’re word, is G-d’s word. Replace the ”Tur” (or whoever) from your questions, with ”G-d” to realize how imbecilic these questions are.
Here is a first-hand story from a very close relative living in flatbush. (You can come and hear it first-hand if you would like.) Before the war the Satmar Rebbe ZTV’L used to travel across Europe to raise funds for the Yeshiva. This relative lived in a Jewish town in Czechoslovakia. When the Rebbe came every year, he would stay in their house. During the early year wars, a decree was made at certain times by the Czech government forbidding the use of lighting (including indoors), so the enemy bombers shouldn’t be able to use it as a guiding light.
Well, as luck would have it, when the Rebbe came one year, this decree was in effect at the time. So my family removed all the outdoor lighting traditionally used to be mekabel ponim the Rebbe. And they covered as much as possible the indoor lighting. The living/dining room was a large room with some doors midway through, that mostly obscured one half from the other. The table was packed with family and the Rebbe’s chasidim.
The goyish neighbors, as much as was done to obscure it from the outside, saw the light coming from the house when the Rebbe was there. Not exactly being friends of the Jews, they called the police. Well with a war going on, the towns Chief of Police was at the house rather quickly. He barges in with his Lieutenants, and demands to know why there are lights burning. My relative is there shaking with fear as his father tries explaining to the Chief that the Grand Rabbi came from out of the country, and it would be highly inappropriate to be mekabel him in darkness. So the Chief demands to see the Rabbi. The Rebbe was sitting at the head of the long table in the front half of the room obscured by the doors in middle. With no other choice, his father asks some of the talmidim near the doors to swing them wide open so the Chief could see the Grand Rabbi. The doors were opened wide, and my relative – and everyone there – witnessed a poweful and blinding light emanating from the Rebbe’s forehead. The jackbooted Chief of Police and every one of his Lieutenants, without another single word, made a U-turn and a beeline for the exit, running as if for their dear lives.
This is from a tzadik who was niftar LESS THAN 30 YEARS AGO.
AL ACHAS KAMA V’KAMA THE TUR AND THESE OTHER ANGELS. You and I are less than the dirt on the ground they stepped on. Anyone of us who questions their ”biases” or ”upbringings” or ”environmental influences” needs their head examined.
Would you c’v ask these questions about G-d? If not, don’t ask them about G-d’s personal right-hand angels.November 25, 2008 8:58 pm at 8:58 pm #1217825NobodyMember
Rabbiofberlin – are you reading the same words as I typed? Are they in clear and concise English?
Did I use the words apikoros or Rosho? Did I say anything about being scared of asking questions?
I just warned against going down the road of getting too personal against G’doilim, Rebbes and Tzadikim past and present – as in naming anyone in particular.
I have no intention of getting involved in this discussion and merely gave words of warning out of respect to those on a higher madregah to you, me and everyone on this site.
I think an apology is due here. You were way out of order in your response to meNovember 25, 2008 9:22 pm at 9:22 pm #1217826
well, nobody, APOLOGIES to you if I misunderstood your words. I surely did not mean to insult you. However, you can see from Joseph’s posting (just above) how people try to muzzle sincere questions. THAT is why i asked the question.
IT is ABSURD to accept joseph’s words as he writes them.It is close to heresy to say that the Tur’s words (or any other rishon) are akin to G-d’s words. What do you do then with an opposite opinion? And what happens if he is proven wrong?
When I learned the story of “tanur shel achnoyi” I remember clearly that the gemoro says “loi bashomayim hih”. Enough said.November 25, 2008 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #1217827
“Replace the ‘Tur’ (or whoever) from your questions, with ‘God’ to realize how imbecilic these questions are…Would you c’v ask these questions about God?”
Of course Gedolim deserve a great deal of respect and are on a higher level than any of us can ever conceive of, but they are still HUMAN, they are not GOD no matter what.November 25, 2008 9:29 pm at 9:29 pm #1217828
Please don’t tell me that you’re equating the words of the Tur and the Torah Temimah with the words of God. As great as they were, you can’t honestly tell me that every word of the Tur is the equivalent of words in the Chumash. I don’t think you believe that!
Your story (giving, for the sake of argument that it’s 100% true) only proves that miracles can happen through tzaddikim. It does nothing to prove that their words are free of cultural influences of the times and places in which they lived.
Furthermore, I don’t see how this should be a problem. The Tur and the Torah Temimah weren’t born gedolim. They grew up — just as you and I did. Their lives were influenced by things that happened to them personally, by their culture and the times in which they lived. To argue that they grew up in a cultural vacuum is ridiculous. And to argue that their thought processes, their decisions, the way they lived their lives and their Torah wasn’t affected by their environment is also ridiculous.
Look at it this way — if the Tur grew up in today’s world, would he have been the same person? Let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that he would have had the same level of intelligence, the same personal piety and the same desire to learn. Do you really think that the Tur of this modern-day sage would be the same as the Tur we have now?
The WolfNovember 25, 2008 9:29 pm at 9:29 pm #1217829
Cleary the point escapes you.November 25, 2008 11:05 pm at 11:05 pm #1217830jphoneMember
Now that the thread has come this far, lets take it full circle.
So, is a boy looking to date a girl or a chavrusa?
Lets go one step further. Does a boy want to marry a a girl, or a chavrusah?
While were at it. Would a boy want a girl for a chavrusah?November 25, 2008 11:38 pm at 11:38 pm #1217831feivelParticipant
when a blind man thinks he can see
he will not seek a remedy
the ultimate ignorance and foolishness, the hallmark of our era
a clear sign of the nearness of Moshiach.November 25, 2008 11:53 pm at 11:53 pm #1217832smalltowngirlMember
I’d love to sit and chat but my husband is due home from the kollel, and we are planning on learning together tonight!
The answer to the question is, ask “the boy” what he wants…November 26, 2008 12:00 am at 12:00 am #1217833
joseph….I am not sure whether I should be flattered or insulted that you singled me out to say “the point escapes you” (don’t worry,whather it is, I still read your blogs…)
Anyway- I (and others) continue to respect, honor and idolize our great Rabbonim throughout the centuries. This does not mean that they are/were not human. My pointo f contention with you is the fact that you accept Rabbonim’s words unconditioanlly, wheras Ii just cannot do this. Well, maybe I lack in emunah, but my sechel tells to question, if it is necessary.I ask questions and I puzzle over some of their decisions. This does not necessarily diminish hem in my eyes, just makes them human.November 26, 2008 12:02 am at 12:02 am #1217834
jphone, a ‘bochur’ is intent on finding his “eyshes chayil”. I doubt whether he wants a chavrusoh but intelligence and knowledge cannot harm the situation…November 26, 2008 12:12 am at 12:12 am #1217835oomisParticipant
There was a story told of a wagoner who was brought to a din Torah ebcause he had an accident on an icy road while transporting someone’s merchandise. His wagon fell over, and the merchandise was all broken . The owner took him to the Beis Din, and the Dayanim ruled against the wagoner, and ordered him to pay for the broken merchandise. He was very distraught and asked them how they arrived at their p’sak. They answered him that it was very clear from the Torah, that someone hired to do a service, such as transporting merchandise, which makes them responsible for the safekeeping of your valuables, is responsible if something happens to them. The driver asked them, “Please, could you tell me, when was the Torah given?” They answered him, “On Shavuos.” “Well,” her replied, “that explains everything. The Torah was given in the summertime, when the roads are dry and clear. Had it been given on a snowy, icy day in winter, I bet the law would have been in MY favor!”
The point is, that the Torah does not change, but circumstances of life do, and in areas of hashkafa, people are bound to believe in things that resonate in their particular lives. There was a time when certain Chachomim thought that to speak to a woman was shtuss. There was a time when Rabeinu Gershom made a takana that a man could not have more than one wife, and I have heard that this was because his own life with two wives was so miserable. The Torah never assered that? HE did. Is it so hard for Joseph and others here, to believe that MANY of the things we take for granted as being THE LAW, are really hashkafic opinions that chachomim in a particular time and place followed, because their life experiences dictated that line of thought?
There are so many Rabbonim today who agree that it is crucial for our young women to be schooled in Torah. After all, they are the next generation of Emahos of Am Yisroel.November 26, 2008 12:41 am at 12:41 am #1217836000646Participant
to say that the rishonim and achronim’s statements were never influenced by the times they lived in is simply not true as was pointed out in the “rambam on marriage” thread with a father marrying off his 9 year old daughter.
and “the hoax of global warming” thread about there scientific statements most of wich were clearly wrong and just a product of there times and some of wich they even learn out of psukim such as the chinuch (mitzva 545) saying that no animal ever goes extinct.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.