October 11, 2012 7:31 pm at 7:31 pm #1050888
In my shul, everyone sings “shelo asani Popa”December 29, 2014 2:33 pm at 2:33 pm #1050889
☢️ 🚭 ☣️ Rand0m3x 🧠🕴️🎲Participant
Popa was in excellent form in this thread.December 29, 2014 2:37 pm at 2:37 pm #1050890
☢️ 🚭 ☣️ Rand0m3x 🧠🕴️🎲Participant
I believe PBA is addressing the notion that “sheosani kirtzono” reflects a positive attibute of nashim, by pointing out that the converse would mean that men were not created kirtzono (which is, of course, absurd).
Two years later, can anyone give a good alternative explanation?
(Or perhaps it does not actually need one?)December 29, 2014 7:07 pm at 7:07 pm #1050891
#Rabbi Zecharya Wallerstein gives an excellent answer in his youtube video of Shomer Nehgiah..December 30, 2014 8:44 am at 8:44 am #1050892
The Gemara (I believe Eruvin 13b) says that human beings were better off not being created. Therefore, none of the Brachos start She’asani (She’asani Kirtzono is quite a discussion) because we cannot thank Hashem for actually creating us. We can only bless Him that once He created us, we were created in a fashion that has more opportunities to do Mitzvos.
This might be the first answer that actually somewhat worked for me.
In the Yesod Malchus siddur, the bracha for women is “baruch (ata hashem….haolam) she’asani kirtzono”, meaning that God’s name is in parenthesis. It always bothered me because it’s saying that it’s not really a bracha and I assumed chazal made up that bracha so women can feel good that we have a bracha. Now I understand why the bracha was seemingly against women and why the women’s bracha is tooting our own horn, considering it might have been made up by women.
I’m still left wondering why, if the purpose int the man’s bracha is because he has more mitzvos, why it can’t be more explicit in the bracha. Why can’t the bracha have been written in such a way that it doesn’t degrade females.December 30, 2014 11:14 am at 11:14 am #1050893
I stopped saying *shelo asani isha* a few months ago. I’ve read more than a few of the apologetics for this, some of them by frum women and for me at least they no longer wash. They all seem to be a variant on theme of “Since men are spiritually weaker than women, Hashem gave us lots of particular mitzvot & that is what we are thanking Him for.” Even if one accepts this idea (I don’t, not any more), it still doesn’t sound right (“…who has not made me a woman”), on the contrary. Methinks a better way could have been found to express the idea. So I’ve been saying what women say & thus praising Hashem *she asani k’ritzono*. (He did.) Works for me.December 30, 2014 2:49 pm at 2:49 pm #1050896
So just be honest and say, “?????? ???? ??????”.December 30, 2014 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #1050897
Personally, I think the men are blessing Hashem for not creating them to be the child-bearers, to have to go through pregnancy and labor, and then yipes – actually rear the children (for the most part). It is a tough job for tough people, and men are simply not tough enough or cut out for such an undertaking. (JUST KDDING, FOLKS!)December 30, 2014 3:57 pm at 3:57 pm #1050898
So just be honest and say, “?????? ???? ??????”.
Yup, that about sums it up.December 30, 2014 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #1050899
what that statement (spiritually weaker) means that we have more mitzvos to fulfill, the point of our creation is to serve Him, take it like this, in a job, the more responsibilities one has the more important (managers have a lot more responsibilities than workers) therefore our pay grade is more
in the words of peter parker “with great power comes great responsibility” the converse is also trueDecember 30, 2014 4:16 pm at 4:16 pm #1050900
“So just be honest and say, “?????? ???? ??????”.”
???December 30, 2014 4:33 pm at 4:33 pm #1050901
Because what you really are doing is creating yourself a god according to your will.December 30, 2014 4:59 pm at 4:59 pm #1050902
Women have more actual responsibilities than men.December 30, 2014 7:48 pm at 7:48 pm #1050903
interjection: Honestly, probably because no one thought it would be degrading to women. People didn’t think like that. I would guess that there would be a different formulation if Chazal were around today.
northwardb: See my explanation on the first page.December 30, 2014 8:34 pm at 8:34 pm #1050904
The brocha is not degrading to women or something that Chazal overlooked and they wouldn’t have worded it any differently. It is only a modern perception (not even all that old) of some people that think otherwise.December 30, 2014 9:27 pm at 9:27 pm #1050906
picturesq: Saying “Thank you Hashem for not making me like the other person” implies something negative about that other person.December 30, 2014 10:16 pm at 10:16 pm #1050907
It doesn’t necessarily imply anything negative about that person. It means that one does not want to be that person. There is a difference.December 30, 2014 10:18 pm at 10:18 pm #1050908
“Thank you Hashem for (making me royalty and) not making me a commoner.”
“Thank you Hashem for (making me a Kohen and) not making me a Yisroel.”
“Thank you Hashem for (making me an employer and) not making me an employee.”
“Thank you Hashem for (making me rich and) not making me poor.”
None of these brochos are degrading to commoners, Yisroelim, employees or the poor. It is simply thanking Hashem for making one on a higher madreiga. Just like a Talmid Chochom is on a higher madreiga than a non-Talmid Chochom.December 31, 2014 12:44 am at 12:44 am #1050909
Saying “I’m better than person X” inherently implies that person X is lower than me, but saying “I am glad I am not person X” does not.December 31, 2014 12:47 am at 12:47 am #1050910
picturesq: Um, yes they are. Saying “I’m better than person X” inherently implies that person X is lower than me.December 31, 2014 12:55 am at 12:55 am #1050911
I specifically said they’re on a lower madreiga, just like a non-talmid chochom is on a lower madreiga than a talmid chochom. That’s the whole point of men having more mitzvos. But acknowledging that talmidei chochomim or men or whatever are on a higher madreiga, while factual, is not degrading others (like non-talmidei chachomim or women).December 31, 2014 2:27 am at 2:27 am #1050912
picturesq are you saying that men are on a higher madreigah than women?December 31, 2014 2:50 am at 2:50 am #1050913
I thought that part wasn’t under debate. The whole point of men having more mitzvos, that everyone was mentioning as a reason for this brocho, puts them on a higher madreiga just like a talmid chochom is on a higher madreiga than a pashute yid. Another thing that shows this is the halacha of saving lives first.December 31, 2014 2:57 am at 2:57 am #1050914
“Haven’t heard this from anywhere, but maybe we are thanking Hashem for making us into men despite women being on a higher spiritual level.”
This is a myth invented to appease feminism. Women are not on a higher level. You will not find any classic source that says such a thing. I can show you several that say the reverse though.
The idea also doesn’t fit into this context because the brachos work in a certain order, goy, slave, woman. Is the goy higher than the man too? And why would you be thankful for being made less spiritual?
Here is a great explanation from Rabbi Soloveitchik:
from the addendum to the Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik Siddur
(R. Isaiah Wohlgemuth, Guide to Jewish Prayer, pp. 59-60, said in the name of Rabbi Soloveitchik)December 31, 2014 2:59 am at 2:59 am #1050915
This is from the Tur on Orach Chaim 46.December 31, 2014 3:03 am at 3:03 am #1050916
Reb Moshe says we have mitzvos because we have holiness, not the reverse. But he says men and women are equal in holiness.
“You should know that all of this (the exemption of women from positive time bound commandments) is not because women are on a lower level of holiness than are men. While obligation in commandments results strictly from one’s having holiness, men and women, in that sense, are equal in holiness. All the verses in the Torah regarding holiness refer also to women. (This applies from) the beginning (with) the arrangement to receive the Torah (at Sinai). “You’ll be to me a treasure and you’ll be to me a holy nation.” Exodus 19:6. (The subject of this verse is all of the nation of Israel) as it says “house of Jacob” in referring to the women and “tell to the house of Israel” in referring to the men. Exodus 19:3. “
Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim IV #49December 31, 2014 3:15 am at 3:15 am #1050917
Men have more chiyuvim in mitzvos, but that doesn’t mean we’re on a higher madreigah than women.
Kohanim, though, are on a higher madreigah than Leviim and Yisraelim. The brachah for birchas kohanim is ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????, which connotes a higher level of kedushah.
Women, on the other hand, according to some Rishonim, can say the brachah of ??? ????? ???????? even on mitzvos for which they’re not obligated, become the p’tur isn’t based on a lower level. Even the Rishonim who disallow the brachah, as I recall, object to the lashon of ??????, because they’re not commanded.December 31, 2014 3:19 am at 3:19 am #1050918
DY: How do you explain the reason for the halacha of the priority of saving lives?December 31, 2014 3:23 am at 3:23 am #1050919
Can an eishes kohein make the bracha of asheir kidshanu b’kdushaso shel aharon because she eats teruma?
How about the eved of a kohein?December 31, 2014 3:28 am at 3:28 am #1050920
picturesq: Saying “Thank you Hashem for not making me like the other person” implies something negative about that other person.
No, it does not. It implies something less positive. This is not merely semantics, these are worlds apart hashkafically.December 31, 2014 3:34 am at 3:34 am #1050921
Picteresq, as owl points out (his post wasn’t up when I posted), that question could be put to R’ Moshe as well. I think the answer is: more mitzvos.
Popa, does a kohen say that brachah when eating terumah? I’m only aware of it for duchaning, and other forms of avodah, but not for achilas terumah.
Even if they did, their achilah might be a mitzvah and a form of avodah, but nashim va’avadim would be a r’shus.December 31, 2014 3:35 am at 3:35 am #1050922
“Men have more chiyuvim in mitzvos, but that doesn’t mean we’re on a higher madreigah than women.”
See Maharal, Chidushei Agados, Makkos 23b and Zies Ra’anan (Magen Avraham) on Yalkut Shimoni, Shmuel 1:1 “And Chana prayed on her heart.”December 31, 2014 3:35 am at 3:35 am #1050923
Feminists un-appeased, will fight.December 31, 2014 3:40 am at 3:40 am #1050924
“I’m still left wondering why, if the purpose int the man’s bracha is because he has more mitzvos, why it can’t be more explicit in the bracha. Why can’t the bracha have been written in such a way that it doesn’t degrade females. “
It was such a different world back then. Men and women were seen as being in two different worlds and people were not so easily insulted. Even 50 years ago it was that way. Imagine, 1500 years ago, or longer. That bracha could be 2,000 years old or 3,000 years old.
And the world wasn’t so competitive either. They didn’t rank everything. There was no world series champion, no college rankings.December 31, 2014 4:06 am at 4:06 am #1050925
DY: Check the Rambam on the Mishna (Horios) that discusses this halacha. I’m pretty sure he writes that it is because of a higher level of kedusha.December 31, 2014 4:33 am at 4:33 am #1050926
I think R’ Moshe is learning (and the lashon of the Rambam sounds this way) that the added kedushah is not b’etzem, it’s a product of the extra chiyuvim. Kohanim, OTOH, have their extra mitzvos because of the higher level of kedushah.December 31, 2014 6:33 am at 6:33 am #1050927
picturesq: Pashtus is that the “Halacha of saving lives” is a misreading of the Mishna. See Tzitz Eliezer 18:2 (give or take).December 31, 2014 11:55 am at 11:55 am #1050928
That certainly isn’t the pashtus as it seems to me that the Tzitz Eliezer is shver as is a daas yochid on his interpretation which is contrary to the Shach and Taz, and really the Mishna itself is pretty clear, while he is giving it a new and unique teitch. What’s even shverer is that the Tzitz says that the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t cite this halacha from the Mishna whereas the S”A actually does (YD 252-8). Also, the Tzitz’s interpretation runs contrary to the braisa in Kesuvos 67b.December 31, 2014 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm #1050929
picturesq: What are you referring to in Kesubos?December 31, 2014 1:46 pm at 1:46 pm #1050930
The braisa (starting on the bottom of 67a) says that if there’s only a limited amount of money for food, then women are given first prior to men.December 31, 2014 4:56 pm at 4:56 pm #1050931
picturesq: That’s a Machlokes Tannaim and a separate issue. That’s by Yerusha, not Tzedaka. I have not yet had a chance to look up the SA, Shach, and Taz, but B”N I’ll get to it.December 31, 2014 6:29 pm at 6:29 pm #1050932
“I think R’ Moshe is learning (and the lashon of the Rambam sounds this way) that the added kedushah is not b’etzem, it’s a product of the extra chiyuvim.”
With the Rambam it’s hard to tell. With Reb Moshe it seems pretty clear. He says the shaychas of the chiyuv of mitzvos is FROM kiddushah. He doesn’t say kiddushah is from mitzvos.
He might get this from the Gemara in Yavamos that considers that an extra pasuk is need to learn a mitzvah for cohanim because they have more kiddushah.
However, he notes men and women are equal in kiddushah. This is why we say women are exempt. They have a connection to the mitzvah, but are exempt, (like a chason on his wedding day is exempt from krias shema-my note). This is why they say a bracha when doing lulav et al.December 31, 2014 7:30 pm at 7:30 pm #1050933
Rav Soloveitchik explained that according to the Rambam, every type of Kedushah stems from the increased Chiyuv in Mitzvos.December 31, 2014 10:36 pm at 10:36 pm #1050934
Sam: The braisa I’m referring to is discussing tzedaka not yerusha. It’s relevant since the Tzitz you cited has an interpretation that you give first to a man whereas the braisa says to give first to a woman.January 2, 2015 4:15 am at 4:15 am #1050935
Interesting, do you recall where the rav says that?January 4, 2015 3:09 pm at 3:09 pm #1050936
The whole concept of discussing who is born holier is really childish, which is not out of place in our times. What does it even mean to be born holier? Is this a chairsong? We are born with responsibilities and by fulfilling them we are being fulfilled, and can attain holiness.
Is a Kohen a better person? Is he innately more accomplished? He has a job and position. He is charged with priesthood which carries with it holiness that he must guard.
We apply ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? to a woman as well. When you are forced to sort an order the Halacha respects the potential of Mitzvos. Again, nothing about ‘being’ better.
While the Maharal discusses often the concept of man representing ???? and woman the ????, he actually stresses that it is a representation and not identity.January 4, 2015 3:25 pm at 3:25 pm #1050937
In almost every species there is a dominant gender. Dominant doesn’t mean superior, and surely not ‘better’. Like I said, nobody is born better. You might be born luckier. Having the role of dominant is an external, identifiable attribute and it makes sense to appreciate that. Is realizing this insulting? In other words, do I have to blind myself in order not to insult you? Are you born with an inherent insult to which the only solution is to make believe it doesn’t exist?
There’s a much better solution, put things in context. Two roles side by side, one has glamour and both are equally necessary. The sky is not better than the earth, and definitely not more important, but it does have a glamour. We do have a certain respect, and it is used as metaphor for achievement.
Having said all that, the Bracha is actually about being charged with Mitzvos, as Chazal tell us. There is obviously a good reason why men have more Mitzvos, and obviously women aren’t being shortchanged by ????? ???? ???. But we thank Him for what we have.January 4, 2015 5:04 pm at 5:04 pm #1050938
owl: R’ Schachter and R’ Rosensweig quote it often. I could find links to it on YUTorah. But they say it wherever they discuss Kedushas Yisrael. I don’t know if it’s in print from The Rav.January 4, 2015 5:13 pm at 5:13 pm #1050939
JosephParticipantJanuary 4, 2015 5:58 pm at 5:58 pm #1050940
And Leviim in my case.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.