September 10, 2008 2:05 am at 2:05 am #651152
Thanks, I agree with that assessment that conversations get unintentionally overheated at times. We can all be more careful.
Pashuteh, answering a question that has no foundation in fact is something I cannot help you with. No one on this thread, myself or others, have said “that women must dress ugly” inside or outside. You will not be able to find a single statement to that effect. Either that is your misinterpertation, or that is a demagoguery of what has been discussed and can only lead one to believe that an attempt to delegitimize tznius standards is at hand.
I already provided you the source for having special dress for the husband inside the home.September 10, 2008 3:35 am at 3:35 am #651153
I am very surprised at your words. I must add my words of protest to it, as it as close to kefira – if not actually – that I’ve seen in a long time.
Referring to any portion of the Torah Hakedosha as ‘irrelevant’ is way over the line. And to say something from the Torah ‘No longer applies’? (And you also said its ‘technically still applicable’ as if its only some form of ‘technicality.’) And that it is from ‘two thousand years’ ago?
Mariner, I am very surprised with you. I will not engage in some of the harsh language, but I certainly can see why someone would respond so harshly to such near (at least) apikorsus.September 10, 2008 3:38 am at 3:38 am #651154
eph, maybe you are a little forgetful but this is you qouting another post
“Let me repeat something another poster once posted on these boards:
“they are simply like stalks of wheat in the field of Golus, under the influence of whatever current goyish wind is blowing.
they are hardly to be blamed, they were never taught what Yiddishkeit means. They were born in an era of the greatest darkness in the history of the world, but think they walk in light.
they fulfill the Pasuk of “Hoster Hester”. not only is His face hidden, but they dont even know that it is hidden.”
as for my run on sentences, and spelling, i could care less. this is a message board, not an english literature paper. though even on a message board, reading comprehension is needed.
as to pashuteh yid, joseph needs to see that tehre are people that are not going to take his ramrodding of his form of judaism down other peoples throats any longer. he never has answers for anything. he qoutes one source, then wants to make believe that all seforim agreed.September 10, 2008 4:20 am at 4:20 am #651155
(Tehilim, Gemorah, Shulchan Orach, and Rambam are “one source”? No, I won’t repeat the mekors for the umpteenth time. Check the earlier messages in this thread.)September 10, 2008 4:39 am at 4:39 am #651156
Joseph, please share with us the suggestions your wife has implemented in order to minimize time spent outside the home performing household/ childcare chores, or advice given by your LOR on this issue. As Tzippi mentioned, she’d like to hear these suggestions too, & so I’m sure would others.September 10, 2008 1:27 pm at 1:27 pm #651157
anon, Like I told her, My LOR and your LOR may have a different approach or perspective. If my LOR tells me to have my wife shave (he didn’t), would you consider following those instructions? If not, ask YOUR LOR for advice on all your queries.September 10, 2008 2:28 pm at 2:28 pm #651158
Let me ask the question from the other side of the token:
Does anyone here believe that the wives should be prancing around anywhere, anytime outside whenever they well please too?
(I’m sure there are folks that do, as we live in terrible times. But it is they that are flaunting the clear instructions in halacha that a wife should be limited in the amout of time spent outside. Regardless of the entire discussion on how limited, how much time. Rambam I guess says once or twice a month, the shulchan orach just says it should be limited, etc.)September 10, 2008 2:35 pm at 2:35 pm #651159
mariner or pashuteh, several commentors provided maarah mokoms showing not only that a woman should be limited in how much time she is outside< but sources specifiying suggested amout of times she should be out>
now please provide your sources and mekoros backing up what you say> in this entire conversation neither of you has provided a single source other than to knock shulchan orach and rambam saying that they say its a “good idea” but not a requirement> sorry to break it to you two but it is a requirement not just a nice idea>
why cant you provide any sources?September 10, 2008 5:59 pm at 5:59 pm #651160
As the site on “Lubavitch and Rav Belsky’ is closed, I am using this post to answer Zalman’s diatribe agsint me on that post, ref. teaching gemoro to women/girls. I will not, for now, enter into a long discussion of this because it requires a long post,but I would urge you to look at the “Perisha” on the Tur. ( I do hope you know what the Perisha is..)
Anothier thing_ amongst the long posts you wrote , you brought down a Radvaz On the Rambam about milchemet mitzvah (or choivah,according to some sources). You mentioned that the Radvaz -commentary on the Rambam-syas that this does not mean actually going to war but just “leaving her “shevah brochos”. Well , the Radvaz in Hichos melochim does NOT say anything of that kind. Please tell me where you found that statement. From all Poskim , and the gemoro, it is evident that it DOES mean to go to war and waging war(kallah mechuposso..) there is one source that seesm to imply a similar appraoch and I will wait to see whether you know it too….September 10, 2008 6:02 pm at 6:02 pm #651161
to “doc”. Actually, there are many halochos that do not necessarily apply today…I would never call it “irrelevant” because, as you say, nothing in the Torah is irrelevant, but you can say that it is not applicable. If you need examples, I’ll gladly provide them.September 10, 2008 6:11 pm at 6:11 pm #651162
Berlin, Please do. Examples of halachos that are in Shulchan Orach and Rambam that applied previously but are no longer applicable in the new generations. And please specify if your claim is universally accepted or a fringe view. ThanksSeptember 10, 2008 6:14 pm at 6:14 pm #651163
Berlin, The quotes I believe are verbatim. Did I name the wrong meforesh? I don’t think so but certainly can check. As far as women and gemoras you were very adamant in that closed thread that there is no such concept of women no being allowed to learn gemora. I clearly demonstrated with a boatload of mekoros that you were totally off the wall with that.September 10, 2008 6:33 pm at 6:33 pm #651164
Berlin, you are just questioning the correct meforesh for # i?:
i. Radvaz: Women do not fight, due to “Kol Kevudah.” Rather, a Kalah leaves the Chupah, i.e. she forfeits the week of Sheva Berachos because her husband must go to fight. Alternatively, women supply water and food for their husbands, like Aravi women do nowadays.
ii. Sefer ha’Chinuch (Mitzvah 603): Women do not fight in war.
iii. Question (Minchas Chinuch): What is the source to exempt them? This is an Aseh that is not Zman Grama!
iv. Rambam (introduction to Sefer ha’Mitzvos DH v’Atah): Women are exempt from optional wars.
v. Rashash (Sotah 44b b’Mishnah): It is a Chidush that women go. Perhaps they go to prepare food for the men.September 10, 2008 7:09 pm at 7:09 pm #651165
should’ve read (2 posts of mine above):
women NOT being allowed to learn gemora.September 10, 2008 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #651166
…at least thats what I think the commentor wanted to say (2 posts above mine.)September 10, 2008 7:18 pm at 7:18 pm #651167
Joseph, I would appreciate hearing these suggestions because I think I might get some ideas from them, even if they don’t come from my LOR. If they are not helpful to me, someone else posting or lurking here could benefit. Even if that’s not the case, I’d gain a better understanding & appreciation of how another frum person conducts her life. And isn’t that what this forum, at its best, is all about?
If Zalman or another poster would like to share ideas on this, I’d appreciate it too.
If you’d still rather not share, I understand. I’m just explaining why I think I and others could benefit from these suggestions.September 10, 2008 7:38 pm at 7:38 pm #651168
Pashuta- while I appreciate your attempt to make a distinction between chumrah/mihag and halacha, in this case I disagree with you.
1. Nodbody says women should dress ugly out of the house, rather her honor is in her house.
Can you provide a source that says that women should dress up when they leave the house?
2. There is a concept (which is halachic especially tznius) where keeping the rules only as specifically stated is not enough. There is something called ruach hatorah- not to be a minuval b’rshus hatorah. I think we all know this is very relevant to tznius. as there is even the concept of daas yehudis, things which are not written in the shulchan aruch but must be kept. An other example could be students copying from one another, it is not clear halchicly if it is technically genvas daas. (it might be in the case of college students but hard to make it for younger students as they are not getting an monetary compensation for their papers/tests this is a subject I have done qutie a bit of research on ) however, i think everyone would agree that this is not behaviour a jew should do. there are many other examples, where the Torah does not forbid something but it’s obvious that one is not suppose to do it. A mashal. If a husband and wife have a strong good relationship, the husband will know not to do (and to do) certain things with out his wife having to tell him and spell out specfically. Hashem told us eloyki elo sonah zima- Hashem loves kedusha and tznius kedoshim tehyu ki kadosh ani.September 10, 2008 7:40 pm at 7:40 pm #651169
The following is my earnest suggestion. Ask your lor for specifics, and look at this merely as ideas.
Women should spend as much time at home with their family as possible. They should avoid unnecessary publicity. I personally am not a fan of working wives.
Everyones circumstances are different. Different Rabbonim may have different suggestions. This is in no way intended to be imposed upon all readers. End of disclaimer.September 10, 2008 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #651170
Jospeh, as I’ve indicated in previous posts, I’m not discussing the issue of women working outside the home. I’m asking about tips on how to perform household/ childcare tasks such as transporting children (to school/ camp/ playdates/ learning groups/ doctor & other appointments), supervising children at play & taking them on outings, & grocery & household shopping, all while minimizing time spent outside the home. I do spend most of my time with my family, but haven’t figured out how to do these tasks without leaving the house. (I usually bring my kids along, both to maximize the time I spend with them & to teach them appropriate public behavior).
It’s clear that you’d prefer not to share specific ideas, so I’ll end the conversation here.September 10, 2008 8:50 pm at 8:50 pm #651171
anon, No one on this thread ever said that a wife cannot ever leave the house. The commentators that quoted the relevant Shulchan Orach and Rambam specifically mentioned that the essential tasks, like some of what you mentioned, can be done without any problem. (In fact Rambam specifically states: “She is not a prisoner who cannot come and go.” – see the top comment on Page 4 of this thread.)September 10, 2008 9:38 pm at 9:38 pm #651172
to zalman, you probably have littel respct for me. THis is OK. i can live without it. Interestingly, I have quite a lot of respect for you and your research/knowledge. It is not always correct but, at least, you seem to know most of the background. For that, I do respect you.
As far as the issue of war and women. I checked and there is no such RADVAZ,At least not on the relevant rambam in hilchos melochim.
Your “rayoh” from the Rambam – sefer Hamitzvos- actually SUPPORTS the contention that women (and kallohs-“afilu kallah mechuposso”) go out to WAR in times of milchemet mitzvos. As you quote: OPTIONAL WARS” OPTIONAL WARS.
I have to check the Sefer Hachinuch but a milchemet mitzvah is clearly NOT a mitzvas ashei shehazman geromo.
I congratulate you that you did find the ONE acharon who seems to change the simple meaning of the mishnah. The Reshash (R’Shmuel Stresson mevilna) indeed writes that. But, as you quoted, his original understanding was that women do go to war in such case-and he writes, “this is a chidush”. He then writes “ulai” MAYBE, this is to prepare the meals,etc. I did not find any rishon or acharon who holds that view.
Lastly, you did not comment on the “Perisha” on talmud torah to women..Look it up..September 10, 2008 9:47 pm at 9:47 pm #651173
to zalman, I actually did not say that there si no such concept as not teaching gemoro to women. I did question Matisjohu’s statement which he was not able to sustain with mekoros. Please check all my comments. Of course,there is a “boatload” (as you call it)of Poskim who pasken like Reb Eliezer and not like Ben Azai. The argument from those inclined to do this TODAY is based on two things (I think) ; one, there is no specific loshon of “ossur” (Osro chachomim or Ossur lelamed) just that the chachomim did not teach women torah shebaal peh because of various reasons (check it out)Secondly, the worst case scenarios is “ke-ilu lomdoh tiflus”. there is a discussion what “tiflus’ means. the mattirim today say ,ok, I will teach her tiflus, but this is not as bas as keeing women ignorant in an era that women are doctors, lawyers,etc..This is begeder “eis laasos lashem, hefieru torusechu”
I am sure that you will not accept these ‘hetterim” and that suits me fine. But do not be hasty to condemn chachomim who take a different view.And, as you wrote, this only applies to torah shebaal peh,NOT torah shebiksav.September 10, 2008 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm #651174
to zalman… a few mitzvos that are not applicable today or never were:
Ben Sorer Umoreh, Ihr hanidachas, Mechyas Amolek, Binyan hamishkan,Negoim in houses(according to the medrash).
I am not saying that they are “irrelevant” ,Chas vesholom. You will get schar learning those as any other mitzvoh. It just so happens that some mitzvos cannot be applied today.
If you want actual halochos, I’ll show you some too.September 10, 2008 10:35 pm at 10:35 pm #651175
joseph, you wanted an example of how our hanhaga has changed. geirus. geirim no longer brake off all ties with their old family.September 10, 2008 10:45 pm at 10:45 pm #651176
Joseph, I guess I’m getting stuck on the Rambam saying that ideally a woman should leave her home no more than twice a month. Since I need to leave my house almost every day to take care of the aformentioned tasks, and most of my friends with similarly-sized families have schedules like mine, I don’t see how most women can meet this ideal. I was asking about ideas on how to accomplish this.
And in my experience a task performed with a child in tow tends to be more “public” than the same task performed alone. For example, grocery shopping with my children takes longer & involves more interaction with others (e.g., due to bathroom breaks) than grocery shoppping alone. I am comfortable with this because this allows me to spend more time with my children & model correct public behavior, which I consider to be a higher priority at this time than minimizing my time spent outside the home. But the quotes above seem to imply that this is not correct.
This is not to say that I disagree with the Rambam C”V. I’m just confused about how these statements apply to the everyday lives of myself & most of the frum women I know, given the daily tasks we perform. And the questions I’ve been asking have been an attempt to find an answer to this.September 10, 2008 11:45 pm at 11:45 pm #651177
Saythatagain, you make some good and valid points. This is how I would respond:
It is true that their is a mailah in being machmir. Chazal say that the RBSH is nosei ponim lyisroel because although he said you must eat a kdei sviah to have to bench, they are medakdek down to a kzayis or kbeyah.
Nevertheless, one must always balance the positive versus the negative. Everything has a tradeoff. There is a story of Reb Chaim Brisker making kiddush in shul on Yom Kippur because of a fear of the plague. When they asked him why he was meikil on YK, he said, adrabah, I am machmir on pikuach nefesh.
Today we have lost 90% of all Jews to yiddishkeit. Our retention rate is very poor. If we add chumrahs today, we run the risk of losing even more. The loshon in the shulchan oruch that a women should be margil herslef not to go out too much is comparable to the loshon in shulchan oruch that a person should be margil himself to use the bathroom in the morning, so he won’t have to find one at night. This is an eitzah tova, but clearly not a halacha. In those days, they had no bathrooms in the home, and the closest one could have been many blocks away. What a pain to have to go out late at night on a long walk. In our times, while it is still good advice, clearly it is much less critical then it was back then. So times do change, and we must do what is best for our situation.
Today, since women’s income is necesary for many homes to subsist, it would be near impossible to adopt a practice of women staying home. ALso, in those days in a small shtetl, everything was probably close by. Today, the supermarket may be a few miles, and you can’t just walk, so you need to drive and make an outing out of it. Life has changed. It is not halacha which has changed, the situation has changed. If we told women to stay home, then people may not be able to afford tuition, and have to send to public school.
Life is one big shikul hadaas. If we are too machmir on one inyan, we may entirely blow another more important inyan. I doubt any posek would say it is better to send kids to public school than for a wife to earn money towards tuition. This is why we say times have changed. We have a different set of circumstances which requires different emphasis. There are pluses and minuses in everything. If I spend too much on my esrog, I may not have anything for a yontof meal, and have to avoid inviting guests and forego that mitzvah, which may be more important.
My personal opinion is we need to stress ahavas yisroel above all else these days. One must pick and choose very carefully what mitzvos to emphasize and what to deemphasize at any given time, since it is impossible to be mekayem every one in the best possible way. That is simply the metzius. I previously gave another example if you see an old lady struggling with packages when you are on the way to shul, and you can only do one of these mitzvos, which should you do? You will not have time to do both, as you will miss the minyan if you help the lady, and vice versa.September 10, 2008 11:48 pm at 11:48 pm #651178
C’V, I most certainly respect you despite your mistaken views. I’m sure the RBS’O will give you the strength to see the Emes! But even until such time, we love you no less.
I’ve provided you several sources sating they don’t go to war. Do you have any Rishonim/Achronim stating OUTRIGHT (meaning its clear from the text) that women go to war? (I know the Gemorah, but want to know if you have any psak Rishonim/Achronim thats how they pasken.)
After my research on that issue, I think I’ll let you quote me the Perisha you refer to. Thanks in advance.
You told Matisyahu regarding his statement that woman cannot learn Gemora, you said its a “declarations that you cannot suport” (obviously you were wrong, I provided the support), that his position was “ignorant” (its actually the most widely accepted position), and you called it ” that (false) assumption.” So what gives?
So now tell us some mekors that a woman CAN learn Gemora. I provided you more than sufficient that she cannot. Do you have any Rishonim/Achronim? (Rather than your assumed interpertations.)
Rashi comments that Tiflus means lechery, meaning the study of Torah will lead women to immoral sexual acts. BTW anything more than the simple meaning of Torah Shel B’Ksav is not allowed for woman (like I demonstrated in the old thread.)
Berlin: “a few mitzvos that are not applicable today or never were:”
I asked for Mitzvos that WERE applicable when brought down in Shulchan Orach/Rambam but became non-applicable since, like mariner implied regarding the afore discussed Shulchan Orach and Rambam.
State your mekor that “nowadays” Geirim do not break off their ties with their ex-family in a manner different than previous generations. You seem to have a fixation that halacha changes with time (even though as you put it, it “no longer applies” though “its technically still applicable.”)September 11, 2008 2:01 am at 2:01 am #651179
We have never taught women from a book, nor have we ever heard people actually do so. Rather every mother teaches her daughter well-known rules women should know.
One should teach his daughters practical law – not because there is a requirement for them to learn, but so that they should know the laws. Once they know the laws, there is no need for them to learn any more.
Torah Temimah (R. Boruch Epstein, 12th century)
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…September 11, 2008 3:22 am at 3:22 am #651180
rabbiofberlin, In any event, Milkhemes Mitzvah a war during the times of the Tanach when a king would go to war in order to fulfil something based on, and required by, the Torah without needing approval from a Sanhedrin, such as war against Amalek.
Milkhemes Mitzvah by definition is not applicable byom hazeh.
1. Rambam Hilchos Melachim 5:1,2September 11, 2008 3:33 am at 3:33 am #651181
The Gemora additionally says that there are three requirements for a Milchemes Reshus. The first is the consent of the Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 29b). The second is the presence of a Melech (Sanhedrin 20a). The third is consultation with the Urim Vetumim, the ornament worn by the Kohen Godol (Sanhedrin 16b).
A number of meforshim significantly limit each of these three requirements from the Gemora. Rambam does not list the requirement of the Urim Vetumim. Rambam does, however, state elsewhere (Sefer Hamitzvos, perek 14) that the Urim Vetumim are needed.September 11, 2008 4:03 am at 4:03 am #651182
And even in the times when there were milchomos mitzvah, the troops were divided into three groups of equal size: combat, support, and learning. And the women were never in combat. You’ll find no such instance in Jewish history.
In fact, the Chinuch writes that the prohibition of showing fear in battle and the other mitzvos that apply to battle (e.g. yateid al azeinecha) are incumbent upon men and not women, as women do not go out to battle. Since these mitzvos apply to milchamos mitzvah, wars against Amalek and the Seven Nations of Canaan, as well as milchamos reshus, the Minchas Chinuch asks why women are exempt – the Mishna tells us that even a kallah must go out from her chuppah to fight in a milchemes mitzvah.
Rav Soloveitchik, (certainly not an anti-Zionist), explained that aside from the mitzvah of waging war (chovas tzibur) against Amalek and the Seven Nations, there is an obligation (chovas yachid) incumbent upon each Jew to kill members of these nations (Melachim 7:4). The participation of women in battle is not based on the communal obligation of warfare, but on their mitzvah as individuals to fight against these evil nations. This does not effect their exemption from mitzvos that relate to the communal act of war. The same reasoning applies to the reading of the Mashuach Milchama. There still exists a dispensation from the communal act of war for those people normally exempted, but they must participate in some way to fulfill their obligation as individuals to assist the destruction of evil.September 11, 2008 7:30 am at 7:30 am #651183
I think what we can learn from the rambam is that a women should always be focused on her home. the home comes first. home meaning family (not the walls etc) and that a women best place is in the home I dont think we need to start ordering groceeries by internet etc and avoid going out altogether, but we do need to understand that a women’s place is in her home.September 11, 2008 10:11 am at 10:11 am #651184
This thread is really an example of “two Jews, three opinions.” I can only look on and read this threat with a bewildered look on my face while I see the discussion between Joseph and mariner.
Even though I am more inclined to support Joseph here, I think that both of you should show respect to the other. It’s pretty obvious that the two of you hold different opinions (based on different hashkofos); you’ll never agree, just forget it. Your discussion is like a Merkaz HaRavnik and a NKnik discussing religious Zionism: they can talk for another couple of years, but they are just so far apart that they will never get to agree.
Now let’s get back to the topic. Let me assure that you can come to Jerusalem and ask a whole range of rabbonim here, who will tell you that indeed any type of dress and hairstyle other than what is generally accepted and seen here is indeed forbidden. Go ask any motz of the Edah. In America, ask a motz of the CRC, I guess.September 11, 2008 1:45 pm at 1:45 pm #651185
mariner: My advance apologies for bursting the bubble on your new-liberal religious views, but Geirim today break off their ties to their birth family as much as ever
Its best to filter out these new age modern religious philosophies.September 11, 2008 3:49 pm at 3:49 pm #651186
to zalman, thanks for your truly good input. As said, I only was “mekatreg” matisjohu because he simply repeated things he ahd heard. It is incumbent upon people to know the mekoros if you want to have an intelligent discussion.
I freely admit that the preponderance of opinions is in your favoir as far as torah shebaal peh for women. this is evident from the Poskim you brought down. However, when yo usee the Perisha (on Tur)you will be surprised at his words. As far as the meaning of ‘tiflus”, look in the Lechem Mishneh that writes that this Rashi (that you qoute) “einoh besifrenu”. In other words this is a disputed rashi. The general impression is that REb Eliezer and the ones who paskened liek him did not trust women with that knowledge (daaton kallos ,etc). I am not going to engage into a debate whether this a correct view, etc. Suffice it to say that the makkilim feel that in today’s society, the place of women ,and their input, has changed. You will not accpet that and thsi is fine too. All I ask is to allow other ipinions without accusing them of heresy.
Will Hill qutes the Aruch Hashulchan, which I know. Will he pasken like him in other matters too? Like- for example, that a woman’s hair TODAY is NOT an ervah? It is easy to be selective. Incidentally, I cherish the Aruch Hashulchan as the best sefer on halacha, if you truly want to understand the whole process fro mthe gemror onwards.
My next posting will deal with women and war, where, I am sorry to say, the mekoros contradict you.September 11, 2008 4:04 pm at 4:04 pm #651187
“The man is the head of the house!
Let me tell you something, the man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.”
-Quote’s not mine, but I think it’s pretty funny.
Just trying to bring light to all this arguing, back, and forth. 🙂September 11, 2008 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm #651188
to zalman, you ask for mekoros on war and women.
First, I must correct you about what you wrote that “(today)there is no milchemet mitzvah bayom hazeh”. The rambam that you keep on quoting (hilchos melochim, fifth perek, first mishneh) CLEARLY writes that “ezras yisroel miyad tzar sheboh aleihem” as a milchemet mitzvah, just like milchemet amolek and shiva ammamim. “To help Jews from the enemy that is attacking them”. This is the QUINTESSENTIAL milchemet mitzvah. I submit that, today, when the enemies of Israel are so intent in destroying us in Eretz Ysroel and elsewhere, the defense of jews in the world is surely a milchemet mitzvah.
For this, the mishneh says “afilu chosson mechuposio,vekallah mechpusso”. Apart from the obvious symmetry here ,that clearly suggests that both go out to war together,you will not find any Possek who gives the explanation that you give on “kallah mechupusso”.(only the reshash ,as metioned, does that. I do not see a Radvaz on that)
Let’s move on to the Minchas Chinuch- who does say what you said, that the mitzvah of “mechyias amolek'” does not apply to women because men are the ones who wage war.
Well, I wish you had looked at the MINCHAS CHINUCH on that mitzvah who clearly says that this is ‘daas jochid” and that the Rambam paskens differently. He adds(his words); “because in truth, in a milchemet mitzvah, ALL go out to war, even a bride..etc”.
Well, I have only brought down the mishneh and the Rambam and I daresay you will find few Poskim who agree with the Chinuch, as shown by the words of the Minchas Chinuch.
I look forward to your comments.I have other interesting rayos if you so require.September 11, 2008 4:15 pm at 4:15 pm #651189
rabbiofberlin, you said “Suffice it to say that the makkilim feel that in today’s society, the place of women ,and their input, has changed. You will not accpet that and thsi is fine too. All I ask is to allow other ipinions without accusing them of heresy.”
What if Gedolim do not accept it, AND hold that such an argument IS HERESY. (My question is hypothetical.) Do you deny such Gedolim from stating as such?September 11, 2008 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm #651190
A Big Fat Yosher Koach to Yoshi 🙂
As no-one (except the poster, who is long gone) is telling anyone else what they should be doing, agree with everyone that for practical application of any halacha, one should ask their LOR.September 11, 2008 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #651191
Berlin, like Zalman pointed out, by the milchomos mitzvah the troops were divided into three groups: combat (fighting), support (i.e. Mashuach Milchama), and learning (Torah). Can you cite one instance in Jewish (not Israeli) history of woman in combat? Including in any of the milchemes mitzvahs (or milchemes reshus)? The answer is not.September 11, 2008 4:56 pm at 4:56 pm #651192
joseph, heresy is a very big word. Not every disputed item of halacha becomes “heresy”. The makkilim (as far as I know) were reb Joshe Ber Soloveichik z’l and the Lubavitcher rebbe z’l. I realize that both of these personalities are not “lefi daatcho”, but then much bigger machlokes happened in past centuries without it becoming a litmus test on yiddishkeit. There are very specific instances when one is called an ‘apikores” and having a certain view on women’s learning does not include this.
Lastly, every godol has the absolute right of stating his opinion. For example, I have never disputed the Satmarer rebbe z’l right in stating his views on Israel and Zionism.I may disagree but he surely is entitled to his opinion.
I have a problem with calling every one who disagrees with a Psak an “apikores”,because this just cheapens the dialogue but then, there is always time for teshuvoh.September 11, 2008 5:24 pm at 5:24 pm #651193
Joseph, you must be blessed with unbelievable great age, because you were obviously there during the time of the Shoftim, the Malchei Yisroel and the Gemoro to know how combat was done in those days. Especially when the Sonei yisroel came to kill every person in a town. For me, I will be happy if hakodush boruch huh gives me 120 years.
I don’t see the relevance of the different groups in a war. The options of returning from war, etc, is only in a milchemet horeshus. In a milchement mitzvah there is no such option!! RAMBAM , hilchos melochim, seventh perek, fourth mishnah. this is where the Rambam clearly says “afilu choson…etc”. Tthere is no “petur” for learning Torah. In a war, EVERYONE must go out! Check out Shiras devorah on the possuk “Oiru meroz”.
there is no Rishon (or Acharon) in the world who frees people from defending Klal Yisroel in times of danger. Please supply real sources if you have them.September 11, 2008 5:40 pm at 5:40 pm #651194
Just to repeat what has already been quoted on this thread previously:
“In fact, the Chinuch writes that the prohibition of showing fear in battle and the other mitzvos that apply to battle (e.g. yateid al azeinecha) are incumbent upon men and not women, as women do not go out to battle. Since these mitzvos apply to milchamos mitzvah, wars against Amalek and the Seven Nations of Canaan, as well as milchamos reshus…”
“The Rambam (Melachim 7:1) writes that the Mashuach Milchama read the parsha warning not to fear and granting dispensation from battle for a newlywed, someone who had just built a house, or someone who planted a vineyard before all battles, both milchamos mitzvah and reshus.
So Ra’avad is disagreeing with Rambam on this.
AND (final repeated quotation):
“Rav Soloveitchik, (certainly not an anti-Zionist), explained that aside from the mitzvah of waging war (chovas tzibur) against Amalek and the Seven Nations, there is an obligation (chovas yachid) incumbent upon each Jew to kill members of these nations (Melachim 7:4). The participation of women in battle is not based on the communal obligation of warfare, but on their mitzvah as individuals to fight against these evil nations. This does not effect their exemption from mitzvos that relate to the communal act of war. The same reasoning applies to the reading of the Mashuach Milchama. There still exists a dispensation from the communal act of war for those people normally exempted, but they must participate in some way to fulfill their obligation as individuals to assist the destruction of evil.”September 11, 2008 5:43 pm at 5:43 pm #651195
Who said woman not going out to war (assuming that they didnt) has anything to do with tznius maybe its just because woman are physicly weaker, more emotianal and all around not as fit for fighting as men?September 11, 2008 5:51 pm at 5:51 pm #651196
Who said woman not going to war (assuming that they dont) has anything to do with tznius, maybe its just because they are usally physicly weaker and more emotinal then men and all around just not really cut out for physical fighting.September 11, 2008 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #651197
to zalman and joseph…I cannot find the “Ra-avad” that you quote. The Rambam clearly writes that these matters do not apply in milchemet mitzvah, which are the words of the Ra-avad, according to you.
I did find, however, the Radvaz that zalman referred to in that mishna (hilchos melochim, seventh perek, fourth mishnah). As I said earlier, the Poskim don’t agree to this view,as the Minchas Chinuch says.
However, even according to the Radvaz, women DO HAVE A FUNCTION ON WAR !! I am pretty sure you disagree with women being involved at all! (see the fight over Sheirut le-umi) SO, even, “leshitoschem”, why should women be exempt from all service?September 11, 2008 6:21 pm at 6:21 pm #651198
000646, I think you would have a change of mind if you met me… (I trained in the DEP for the Marine Corps. for several months, and I put a lot of men to shame).
-Yes, men have the potential to be stronger, and have large muscles, but not all do, (especially these days with obesity on the rise, & the lack of physical activities), Many women could be very powerful, and strong. Although some may have to work harder then others, (genetics plays a part in this as well).
Anyways, proceed with your arguments everyone, I just wanted to add that little tidbit to the thread.September 11, 2008 6:22 pm at 6:22 pm #651199
leshitoschem, Because Zionism is illegitimate, their wars are neither milchomos mitzvah OR milchomos reshus. And service in their name, in any manner, is illegitimate (and dare I say, heresy).September 11, 2008 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #651200
Yoshi I agree with you 100 percent however as a general rule men are better suited at doing the dirty rough things such as killing especialy in the days of chazalSeptember 11, 2008 7:00 pm at 7:00 pm #651202
Joseph, why not research the matter of the wars of the State of Israel before making gradiose proclamations that are not backed up. You may want to start with Rabbi J.D. Bleich’s Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vols. 1 and 2, who cites numerous sources that the wars were justified. I don’t think he is a knitted-yarmulka Zionist, just a big Talmid Chacham.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.