Nashim Da'atan Kalos and Women Today

Home Forums Bais Medrash Nashim Da'atan Kalos and Women Today

Viewing 50 posts - 151 through 200 (of 209 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1773077

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ klugeryid

    “if someone routinely denigrated men in general by pointing out an intrinsic masculine failing, why would it bother me?”

    I suspect a reason it doesn’t bother you is that you are not subjected to behavior and attitudes rooted in discriminatory premises on a regular basis. Maybe if you where you might feel differently.

    #1773080

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Not sure why my post didn’t go through so I’ll repost again

    I’m glad that this has taken a mind of its own because I’m lost so my obligation to reply isn’t relevant anymore

    🥳

    #1773098

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Coffee
    Are you a man?
    Cause I am and I’ve been lost in this thread like never before
    Just wondering if it’s a masculine deficiency

    #1773103

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Kluger,

    Yes I am, but I’m lost because I have a job and couldn’t follow that much

    #1773110

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    You crack me up

    #1773112

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Non political
    So basically your taking it out on Joseph because his comment triggers your rent up frustrations from people you come in contact with on a regular basis?
    And it’s not really about what Joseph wrote?
    A-ha

    #1773114

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    Are you flipping serious?? Did you really let all that go over your head? PLEASE tell me you are joking!

    #1773115

    philosopher
    Participant

    Well, one reason people are lost in this thread is because we were supposed to be arguing what Chazal meant with nd”k that was supposed to “prove” that women are inferior, but no one, including the men here who I expected more from, realized that we are talking about a verse that is an agadata and that was quoted out of context and not a something leading to halacha. But thanks to Bruriah for pointing us in the right direction…and this whole argument collapsed like a burst bubble.

    Except for my original teina of people that have nothing better to do than find verses and quote them out of context trying to prove the inferiority of women, not once and not twice and not for weeks but at least for months, and maybe years. Why does it other me? 1. I’m an honest person and I hate when people spread lies or try to show how their krume views are supposedly dass Torah. That is sheker and I abhor that 2. Women deserve respect and not constant put-downs. I have been on a professional forum where people constantly spouted anti-Semitic views and I always stuck up for us Jews even though I could’ve said “who cares what these idiots think about us?” 3. It is my belief, and I have seen it in real life, that people’s opinions and beliefs influence how they act. And the opinions and beliefs that people hold of other people influence their behavior towards them.

    And so, I protest the continous quoting out of context verses that supposedly show that Judaism holds women to be inferior.

    #1773118

    philosopher
    Participant

    klugeryid, I’m trying not to get into the personal attack mentality but I could see why I become like that with certain people…You cannot quote out of context Torah verses to prove your own points to denigrate others. It’s against the Torah, it’s a transgression of numerous halachos of adam lachveiro and it’s sheker. If you cannot understand this simple concept then your posting name is your own opinion and not a fact.

    #1773121

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Coffee
    Strange.
    Me too
    I read it quick.
    If it doesn’t seem cogent I skip it

    Must be a bad male thing

    #1773122

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Syag,

    Was that to me?

    Yeshiva guy’s post was too long and couldn’t follow and it sidetracked to that

    #1773123

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    Im just baffled. You admit you cant follow the conversation nor make heads or tails of it, yet you prefer (insist?) to back “whatever it was joseph said” even though 5 or 6 people have now disagreed with you, because that somehow makes more sense than considering you might be mistaken (Gd forbid you should go so far as giving us credit for having a valid point. Sometimes people can be right even when you don’t see it. I’ve seen it happen)

    If it wasnt you doing it, i don’t believe youd buy it.

    #1773127

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    No, Coffee. It wasnt to you. And yeshivaguy is bruriah and the posts are better left unread.

    #1773134

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Syag,

    That I got, but didn’t get what he/she was saying

    And I’m glad I didn’t

    #1773138

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Philosopher
    Firstly my posting name is only my opinion. So you can rest easy on that point
    Next
    I hear your latest post love and clear. It’s cogent and substantive
    Only issue is I started by asking where In this thread does Joseph denigrate women (which would include insinuating that women are inferior to men)
    I was taken to task by at least two posters who told me in no uncertain terms that the issue is not that he said anything against women overtly, rather his timing in bringing up this old thread proves his Mysogeny.
    Now you are posting, quite clearly I may add, that you SD upset because he is posting for days months and years out of context verses that prove the inferiority of women. And more along the same line.
    So I ask my question to you.
    What has Joseph posted in this thread about ndk that indicates that his opinion is that women are inferior?
    That’s all I’m asking for.

    #1773142

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Syag
    I’m not sure if your addressing me so I’ll respond in case.
    I never backed Joseph’s point on this thread. I said multiple times I don’t even know what his point is.
    I only opposed uncalled for personal attacks.

    Why I singled you out, may have to do with the fact I responded to the cooties comment which was made by you so I kept going, but it was meant to all who are doing it.

    BTW
    “It was pointed out clearly and explicitly that the response came from your timing. You know that because you read it in at least three posts. Here’s the connection again – the problem was not with the holy words of chazal, it was with you DIGGING THRU SIX YEAR OLD THREADS SPECIFICALLY DURING THE NINE DAYS TO CAUSE DERISION.
    Period.”
    That quote is from you.
    So I ask you, what I’m his comment causes derision?

    That’s what I started with, but you told me you never claimed that.
    Now what?

    #1773163

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    “So I ask you, what I’m his comment causes derision?
    That’s what I started with, but you told me you never claimed that.”

    no, you actually asked me this:

    “Please tell me exactly which comment of Joseph on this thread, denigrate woman?”

    and I told you I didn’t claim that because I didn’t.
    But it does seem that you use those two questions interchangeably, which I find very odd, and it makes it very hard to respond when you seem to be unclear on what we are actually addressing.

    #1773170

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Wow
    Let’s try again
    Joseph is being attacked for making nasty comments towards women
    Denigrate
    Derisive
    Nasty
    Call it what you want
    It’s all the same
    Joseph said something negative about women, let’s go after him.
    So I asked what exactly did he write that is negative.
    Not that one can extrapolate negativity, what is actually negative in his comment.
    I got an answer that that is not the issue. The issue is bringing up a hot button topic in the nine days.
    But then I show you that you wrote he did it to be derisive
    So you tell me nuh uh. You said I said denigrate. I never said that I only said derisive don’t conflate the two.
    Wonderful defense.
    Jump on a wrong word usage and run with it.
    So answer this
    What did he say to cause derision?
    Is that better?
    Yes it’s the same basic question.
    What was negative about his comment that warranted personal attacks

    #1773174

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    Number two –
    “Why are some folks uncomfortable acknowledging this Chazal or its truthfulness?”

    If in your truest heart of hearts you believe this post is parve, then let’s just call it a day.

    .

    #1773176

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    People!

    Have a little רחמנות on the mods, they need a rest!

    #1773177

    Little Froggie
    Participant

    Oish… I’m getting so confuse…
    RY, care to weigh in on these important, pressing issues? We turn to you for guidance…

    #1773179

    philosopher
    Participant

    Syag, please enlighten me what Bruriah said that you object to. She posted entire agadates of Mishna within context and bought legitimate sources of whatever she posted so besides for a 2-3 sentences that could’ve used more revered language towards our holy Sages (but I’m sure there was no bad intent), I fail to see what bothers you about her post.

    #1773182

    laskern
    Participant

    The women make a brocho שעשני כרצונו blessing for their existence being the will Hashem to serve their mate.
    If he is worthy she is an eizer, otherwise she is kenegdo.

    #1773189

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    ” besides for a 2-3 sentences that could’ve used more revered language towards our holy Sages”

    besides for? why wouldn’t that be reason enough?

    #1773199

    philosopher
    Participant

    Klugeryid, as I have repeatedly said, it’s not the Chazal or the Ramban he quoted but the intent behind it. When a person is obsessed with finding verses and quoting it out of context so that it loses it’s original meaning, or neglecting meforshim that explain the meaning, or simply quoting verses without knowing the meaning but just trying to continuously to prove a point that other people are inferior THAT is the problem. If a person tries to understand a Chazal or a verse or a meforesh that seems to put down women or men or whatever and he posts that so that people can share their thoughts on the matter then that’s fine. But to do that over and over again against specific individuals is a mean obsession.

    I have said mine and that’s that. I hope you understand and if not it’s also nisht geferlich but I won’t try to explain again.

    #1773205

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ klugeryid

    “basically your taking it out on Joseph because his comment triggers your rent up frustrations from people you come in contact with on a regular basis”

    Being a male I am not on the receiving end of the kind of neirishkeit that would result in such pent up frustration.

    #1773213

    philosopher
    Participant

    Syag, I sincerely believe it was not with intent to denigrate our Chachomim, c”v but with amateur translation of each of every word with the intent on context it could happen by mistake, not with bad intent. But I may even be wrong and the words could be very accurately be translated, I’m not sure myself. I highly doubt that when learning every word is translated accurately with much thought though and for posting maybe 2-3 words, not even sentences could’ve been changed. But maybe not, it depends if it was extremely accurately or loosely translated…

    That is not why you should make it seem as if the Bruriah’s post is so bad that it’s not worth reading…the words of the Mishna is more accurate with her post than other homemade peshutim that people are cooking up.

    #1773128

    philosopher
    Participant

    Non Political, But why would we argue what ndk means for all women halachically or even only as a Chazal’s description of us if we are talking about an agadata that never has a practical application? As far as I know, agadatas never dictate halacha or define a reality.

    #1773223

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    Philosopher, how is Nashim Daatan Kalos not halachic?

    #1773227

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ philosopher

    “the words of the Mishna is more accurate with her post”

    Her malicious feminist rant was completely out of line on so many levels. Other posters have already called attention to the contemptuous manner she referred to Chazal. Beyond that suggesting that anyone can arrive at the proper understanding of Torah Sh’bal Pe by reading english translations of Talmud on Sefria is obscene. Her post does not so much reflect knowledge of the source material more like a familiarity with feminist journal articles on the subject. Not sure why you are trying to defend the indefensible.

    “than other homemade peshutim that people are cooking up.”

    I would say the pshatim you are referring to weren’t so much cooked up as they where half baked.

    #1773288

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    רבי מאיר הוה מתלוצץ בעוברי עבירה יומא חד אידמי ליה שטן כאיתתא בהך גיסא דנהרא לא הוה מברא נקט מצרא וקא עבר
    כי מטא פלגא מצרא שבקיה אמר אי לאו דקא מכרזי ברקיעא הזהרו בר’ מאיר ותורתו שויתיה לדמך תרתי מעי

    ר’ עקיבא הוה מתלוצץ בעוברי עבירה יומא חד אידמי ליה שטן כאיתתא בריש דיקלא נקטיה לדיקלא וקסליק ואזיל כי מטא לפלגיה דדיקלא שבקיה אמר אי לאו דמכרזי ברקיעא הזהרו ברבי עקיבא ותורתו שויתיה לדמך תרתי מעי
    קידושין

    what was the point in bringing this up? That men get tested and women don’t?

    #1773283

    klugeryid
    Participant

    And to all,
    If that long rant from “yeshivaguy”
    Really was without proper respect for chazal
    I was wrong to even give a semblance of kudos to it.
    As I said I couldn’t follow it so I don’t know what it said. But…

    #1773282

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Philosopher
    Yes you said that before
    It’s called confirmational bias.
    It’s uncalled for to attack him here.
    If he really is so egregiously anti women you have plenty of places to judiciously attack him.
    My question was what did he write on this thread that was so bad.

    #1773274

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Syag
    As I said, perhaps someone in his life had just gone on a rant about that line, which caused him to dredge up this post now.
    I could read that line, why do some people in nuts over this? Why is it a big deal? It’s not negative or positive. It just is.

    #1773247

    philosopher
    Participant

    Daas Yochid, sorry, I made a mistake. Indeed nd”k does dictate some halachos regarding yichud, shechting and perhaps other halachas I don’t know of.

    #1773242

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ Philospher

    “But why would we argue what ndk means for all women halachically or even only as a Chazal’s description of us if we are talking about an agadata that never has a practical application? ”

    One area where it has Halachic ramifications is in Hilchot Talmud Torah. The Mishna and Gemara in Soteh and the Machlokes Rashi and Rambam as to how to understand NDK has had (and continuous to have) a significant impact on how Poskim in various communities advocate designing a curriculem for female students.

    “As far as I know, agadatas never dictate halacha or define a reality.”

    Whether or not Agadata dictates Halacha they are part of our Heilig Torah and we have an obligation to understand them in line with the intent of the Ba’alei Mesorah. Something being an Agadeta is not a license to disregard it or to interpet it as one sees fit.

    Also, we argue because when when a superficial reading of Chazal yields a misogynistic or feminist point of view it is our duty to set the record straight. We have this duty to uphold the honor of the Torah and to uphold the dignity of our wives and daughters.

    #1773246

    philosopher
    Participant

    Non Political, ok maybe I did not see what others are seeing…I don’t know. I also don’t remember her having a feminist rant. My mind is stuffed at this point and I can’t go back to reread the posts again but I’m don’t remember a feminist rant by Bruriah.

    As for the teitch, it is true that one cannot learn pshat from an English translation – the translation is just for us to understand the context but maybe the reverence was missing in the post..I was just so excited to see the verse within context as opposed to being thrown around.

    I do see our half baked peshatim may be more than half baked. I think your opinion on this issue regarding Devorah Hanoviah is compelling.

    And I have also come upon two sources that said Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l said that nd”k means that women are more subject to persuasion due to being more emotional as I have suspected and posted that I believe that’s what nd”k means. I think women are more emotional because they are nurturers and get more emotionally involved with people and therefore they may not be neutral in poskening halacha.

    #1773245

    Non Political
    Participant

    @ Bruriah

    You quoted: “קדושין פט”

    What’s your point? surely you are familiar with the concept of כל הגדול מחבירו יצרו גדול ממנו

    You wrote: “Philosopher is not defending”

    she wrote: “I sincerely believe it was not with intent to denigrate our Chachomim, c”v….That is not why you should make it seem as if the Bruriah’s post is so bad that it’s not worth reading”

    That sounds like a defense to me.

    “She’s asking you and others to address the actual chazals in question”

    I actually did precisely this. Did you even bother to read my posts?

    #1773248

    philosopher
    Participant

    Bruriah, honestly I don’t know what to think anymore. I don’t know Loshen Hakodesh that well to translate each word appropriately and it seems that besides for “pretty girls” the translation is accurate. But everyone is angry with your interpretation… Could it be that the translations could have had a more revered tone towards Chazal? I’m not accusing, I’m just asking because besides for “pretty girls” no one has come up with something else. Btw, I very highly doubt Joseph is the moderator. Why? I don’t know for sure but that is my opinion.

    I am seeing many interpretations of nd”k in a literal way and as basis of halacha . I found support for my earlier opinion that nd”k means that women get more emotionally invested than men and therefore we would not be good for paskening halacha, with Rabbi Avigdor Miller zt”l, (who incidently I quoted often in different instances) who says the similar in different words, that nd”k means that women are more emotional and therefore easier to be persuaded ( for the good and the bad…)

    #1773314

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Is the din that one man cannot be alone with two women, a negative on men or on women?

    #1773356

    🍫Syag Lchochma
    Participant

    kluger – how about this idea. 4-5 people have noted this behavior, and even tried explaining it to you but you don’t see it and continue to be all over me to explain it to you. Not explain the problem, but explain it to you in a way that makes *you* like it. So how about if you just accept that you just don’t see it. Even though many others do, you don’t.
    So you don’t see it and yet you will dig deep inside yourself to allow others to have their view of something EVEN though you don’t see it. It’s a madraiga.

    Fair? Cuz I am kinda done spinning my wheels. And the singling me out for my view but telling me I can’t have it is making me feel kinda cruddy by now.

    Oh, and here’s another thing you won’t see but I can bet others will. Joseph thinks this whole thing was awesome and is singing your praises as we speak!!

    #1773320

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Not sure again why my posts didn’t go through (maybe because I copied and pasted it and replied to that)

    Bruriah,

    Why don’t women say שעשני אשה or שלא עשני איש if what you’re saying is true

    Also why bring the gemaros where they were tested? Are you saying that it’s better not to be tested?

    Additionally, why does it bother women that men might be better than them if a כהן said that to a ישראל he wouldn’t care

    And the proof is when the חפץ חיים said it to Rav schwab he wasn’t upset

    I didn’t see any other posts. It was not intentional. – 29

    #1773374

    interjection
    Participant

    According to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, (152/3)

    The din is that one woman can be with 2 “kosher” men during the day, in the city. If she’s in the field, there must be three “kosher” men.
    If the men are prutzim (or not Jewish) then a woman is not even allowed to be with many men.
    A man can never be alone with 2 women, ever, kosher or not.

    I find that most men are in full agreement with the negative male stereotypes (ie. that men are pigs) while most women get offended by negative female stereotypes. However, what I think was bothering most of the women, throughout reading this thread, is not that chazal, at times, may or may not have negative things to say about women. In my opinion, the thing that was really upsetting was the implication that chazal, and therefore Judaism, was denigrating to women as a general rule. When people were quoting chazal and the Gemara, they chose quotes without giving the source for it and therefore making it difficult for others to find out what was really meant. Then, without having learned in depth about the topic, it was implied that we were kofrim if we were not willing to accept the implication, as is.

    #1773381

    philosopher
    Participant

    Non Political, I totally agree with you especially with what you said “Whether or not Agadata dictates Halacha they are part of our Heilig Torah and we have an obligation to understand them in line with the intent of the Ba’alei Mesorah. Something being an Agadeta is not a license to disregard it or to interpet it as one sees fit.”

    That is why it’s so important to bring Rabbinical sources to support our views. But sometimes we have interesting opinions like yours about Devorah Hanoviah that you have no Rabbinical sources, that is only your viewpoint which but it has logical merit. You can say our views should be based on the intent of the baalei mesorah…that is the point that I’m trying to make. Trying to bring only sources that seem to paint women in a negative or inferior light is not what our Rabbis are trying to say as they also point to the chashivas of women as well. What they are saying is people, as men and women and as individuals we have our strengths and weakness.

    #1773382

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    “I didn’t see any other posts. It was not intentional. – 29“

    Interesting, because I know I at least made one post

    found and posted them

    #1773383

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕
    Participant

    However, what I think was bothering most of the women, throughout reading this thread, is not that chazal, at times, may or may not have negative things to say about women. In my opinion, the thing that was really upsetting was the implication that chazal, and therefore Judaism, was denigrating to women as a general rule.

    Perhaps, but the proper response (other than ignoring) would be to point out that Chazal weren’t ch”v denigrating women, rather pointing out a truism because of the practical ramifications.

    However, the response we got from some seemed to border on apikorsus, or at least distortion of Chazal, and others unintentionally were mechazek that.

    #1773393

    laskern
    Participant

    Women don’t say שעשני אשה because men have more mitzvos than women. They say in the positive because by women it was beneficial for them to be created, whereas by men נח לו לאדם שנברא משלא נברא would have been easier to be born than not to be born. Explains the Meharsha that we would have accomplished more by not being created than being created since there are 365 negative commandments and only 248 positive commandments. Once we were created יפשפש במעשיו, he should scrutinize his actions, through teshuva meahavah where averos turn into mitzvos gaining another 365 positive commandments to 613 or ימשמש במעשיו accentuate his actions, ,through kavono in mitzvos doubling the amount of positive commandments to 496.

    #1773400

    philosopher
    Participant

    interjection, thanks for putting it down so well.

    #1773397

    philosopher
    Participant

    Syag, yesterday I told klugeryid I will not be replying to his questions again that we jumped on Joseph for nothing because I realized I was bashing Joseph for days more than my original condemning of this behavior. I originally jumped in when klugeryid kept on bashing you for criticizing Joseph as I felt it was me who really did that. Then I continously explained to him why. But with my continuous “explanations” all I did was bash Jospeh more which made me feel even worse for calling him out- I don’t feel good about bashing anybody and I feel bad about over one remark especially I made to Joseph. I can’t decide if I called out a bully or I’m the bully…but by me continuously stating why I did it, all I’m doing is repeating my bashing…

    #1773398

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Men agree with negative male stereotypes because it gives them permission to conform to them.

Viewing 50 posts - 151 through 200 (of 209 total)
  • The topic ‘Nashim Da'atan Kalos and Women Today’ is closed to new replies.


Trending