- This topic has 48 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
In response to Pac-man’s statment in the “Bachman for president” thread that he will not vote for her because she is a woman, will you vote for women in general?
I would. (I had no problem voting for McCainPalin, which brings up the next question, is it better to vote for a liberal pro everything bad male or a conservative female).
I would, but i am an illegal alien so…..
No.
The Torah prohibits a woman from holding public office.
Pac-Man,
Judging on the fact that the thread is based on you— no kidding!
I feel like sometimes you just want to start up with people and rile them up.
and the torah also had things about not speaking to women = there are plenty of women here.
Pac-Man,
what about Hilni HaMalcha that even the chachamim came to her sukkah
Pac-Man, I am unaware of the Torah placing any limitation on whom Gentile nations may appoint to public office. Do you have a source for that?
Just daven for Shalom hamalchus…..
Coffee: Hilni was a- a giyores, b- not put in place by the Jews themselves, c- rich. Only b has anything to do with halacha, but a and c (particularly c) may explain why the masses were so accepting.
KeenObserver: Most likely a misunderstanding of the Rambam’s Hilchos Melachei Yisrael uMilchamosehem 1:6.
“The Torah prohibits a woman from holding public office. “
Where does it say that? The Rambam says that (Hilchot Melachim 1:6), but he is the only Rishon that says that. Therefore according to Rabbi BenZion Uziel (first cheif Sephardic Rabbi) it is permitted to have a women as head of state (Mishpatei Uziel 44).
I would, if she were the best man for the job.
b- not put in place by the Jews themselves,
so does voting for a woman put her in the place by jews even if most of the people that voted for her are/were goyim?
Why not, if she were qualified?
I have voted for women before.
Gender should have nothing to do with it. I too voted for McCain and Palin. I wouldn’t have voted for Palin for President though. I didn’t think she was qualified at the time. I did think that McCain was and still thing this country would have been better off with him at the wheel. I didn’t thing that Obama was qualified at the time and I think he has proven that. People got carried away with his charm and with the idea of the first Black President. That was wrong. Everything that he said against Bush at the time he took back. Everything he said he would do different that Bush was doing, he rescinded. He had no clue what he was talking about then and he still doesn’t have a clue.
No Rishon argues on that Rambam. It is universal.
The lashon of the rambam (and the gemara he’s quoting) seems to be that the issur is for Jews to appoint any of the people on the list to a Jewish office. Here we’re missing both.
The only reason I’ve never voted for a woman is because there were none I wanted to vote for since I was old enough to vote. (I did vote for a woman if you count McCain Palin.)
I would absolutely vote for a qualified woman
Apparently they don’t have a problem with it in New Square where they overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton for the Senate in 2001.
The Wolf
Wolf: Like charliehall (on the other thread), you are confusing two issues – 1) whether women should *vote* and 2) women holding public office.
yeah wolf but they were paid very well for doing so
Being that I started the other post that got Pac-man so disturbed, Yes I would vote for a woman. There have been many times in history where women did positive things for the world and for Jews in general.
Especially if the choice was a woman who knew what she was doing and a man who just thought he did.
“No Rishon argues on that Rambam. It is universal.”
You could think that way, but clearly others learned otherwise.
See Igrot Moshe – Yoreh Deiah chelek 2 siman 44. Rav Moshe holds that the Rambam is a minority opinion, just as Rav BenZion Uziel holds.
yes I would.
Vote for a women, why not
pac man
sorry if i get peronal but it is the secondthreat today that i opened and see you quote non-existent halacha.
even the source you quote is not a p’sak that a woman may not hold office. if you want to interpret it that way, maybe you may, but only for yourself but not to quote as a halacha.
if you know of a torahdik authentic source that a woman may not hold office, especialy a gentile woman in a gentile country and coulture, then i invite you to quote the source.
if not, please dont quote halachos that do not exists.
although what you wish to do on a personal level you are invited to write here as a personal opinion.
so in my opinion, yes i would vote for a woman if i felt she was competent and capable.
The same halacha that prohibits a woman from holding public office, also prohibits a woman from even being the President of a Shul. A woman is essentially prohibited m’doraisa from holding a position of authority. This law comes from Tanach.
And this point was upheld by Rav Moshe, Rav Kook, Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchek, etc. etc. Young Israel has a strict rule against member synagogues from having a female president. There is no rabbinic authority who is anywhere near the stature of even one of those upholding this fundamental principle that disagree with it.
As far as Rav Kook’s wishes not being followed in the State of Israel, that is simply because the State of Israel is a secular non-Jewish state, whose secular leaders do not take direction from Torah leaders. They violate the Torah across the board, so why should this be different? The decision to allow women to vote and hold office in Israel despite Rav Kook’s strong objections was made by the secular Zionist leadership, who don’t keep the Torah, not by any rabbinical leaders to accept another position. The government violates the Torah in public policy on many levels.
The question of whether woman should vote is a somewhat separate discussion then running for office, that rabbonim have come to different conclusions on (voting). But even the rabbonim who l’chatchila would not allow even to vote, by and large decided that, b’shas hadchak, since surrendering our women’s vote on principle would effectively reduce our influence by half since the rest of the world will allow them to vote, and since women voting isn’t equivalent to a woman holding office with authority, they permitted that.
I would unequivocally, absolutely, NEVER vote for a woman to hold public office (unless she was the better candidate).
I would, if only because Joseph wouldn’t. Jospeh is usually wrong, so I just do the opposite of what he does.
“The same halacha that prohibits a woman from holding public office, also prohibits a woman from even being the President of a Shul. A woman is essentially prohibited m’doraisa from holding a position of authority. This law comes from Tanach”
Was that BEFORE or AFTER Devorah Ha-Neviah?
Apparently they don’t have a problem with it in New Square where they overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton for the Senate in 2001.
The Wolf
A good Rayiah. T’Yuvta to all those who claim it is not allowed.
Was that BEFORE or AFTER Devorah Ha-Neviah?
The Rishonim Discuss this. I believe one opinion (IIRC) says that Barak was “officially” in charge, while everyone knew who really ran the show.
Sort of like before the War of Northern Aggression, when a Freedman had to have a White partner in order to have everything legal, while the Freedman ran the business.
A good Rayiah. T’Yuvta to all those who claim it is not allowed.
except for Goq using itchie’s third criteria
I answered the question about Devorah in the other thread with a Gemorah. In short, it in no way changes the halacha from the Torah that a woman cannot hold public office, be a Judge, or hold an authority position. Devorah was a specific one-time exception that Hashem specifically allowed, and further she could only rule with the consent of the people not otherwise, and the meforshim even say she only acted in an advisory role.
How many women politicians have had weinerlike scandals i cant recall any but the list of men is very long
” and the meforshim even say she only acted in an advisory role. “
Sefer Shoftim says she was the one who led Barak’s army into battle, because he was too hesitant to do it on his own and begged her to go with him. I’m going with that, if it’s okay.
We are having a discussion about general politics and standing for election and voting, and no one has brought in the applicability of Dina Demalchusa Dina? If a country that governs with intended yashrus instead of arbitrariness and cruelty permits, encourages, and expects women to vote and run for public office, and the position is not specifically for a Jewish woman as head of a kehila or a shul, where is the strength of the argument not to allow it?
Here are a few more questions, though, beyond the DMD issue.
If a shul or kehila has acute challenges, and the best possible candidate to lead them through these challenges was a woman with the professional and personal qualifications and experience to save the kehila or shul, would you let it fail or would you find a way for her to lead?
Rabbi Cohen, with all due respect, your understanding of responsibility and authority is not very deep. B’dieved “allowing” women to vote? Anyone voted into office works FOR the electorate, and thus the electorate is in a much higher position of authority. Who controls a thing? He (or she) who has the power to destroy it. The electorate makes or breaks political careers, so the responsibility of voting, which the Rabonim matired for women, is a much higher level of leadership.
Wolf: Like charliehall (on the other thread), you are confusing two issues – 1) whether women should *vote* and 2) women holding public office.
No — *you’re* the one whose confusing things. The issue of whether or not women should vote is not the subject of this thread — the issue is voting *for* women who are running for office.
My response was that the rabbanim in New Square apparently had no problem with voting *for* a woman in 2001 when they overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton for U.S. Senate.
The Wolf
There are two limud zchus’ for that. One it was a matter of ????? ??????? (and B”H a successful one at that) which the Gemorah (Bava Basra 8b) calls a “Mitzvah Rabba” and Shulchan Aruch (YD 252:3) says delaying their freeing by even a moment is tantamount to murder and Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Matanos Aniyim 8:10-11) says that there is no greater mitzvah than ????? ???????. So clearly that reason alone is enough. Additionally the elected position in question wasn’t an executive one but rather a legislative one, where the position was one Senator out of 100 and not able to exert authority by herself, thus the issur of a woman holding a position of parnas/serara (which is the crux of the issur) may have been less relevant. So that example doesn’t change the facts or prove anything claimed, considering the extenuating circumstances given – especially in the first reason.
There is no reason why you shouldnt vote for a woman. There is also no reason why you SHOULD vote for a woman. In other words being a woman has nothing to do with being a good president, the same way there is no reason to vote for a Black just to vote for a minority. If you think someone would make a good president then vote for them, regardless of gender, race, nationality, or any other completely unnecessary diversion from the issues. There have been many female leaders throughout history who have done exemplary jobs in running their countries. There is no reason why a female president today couldnt do the same.
One it was a matter of ????? ??????? (and B”H a successful one at that) which the Gemorah (Bava Basra 8b) calls a “Mitzvah Rabba” and Shulchan Aruch (YD 252:3) says delaying their freeing by even a moment is tantamount to murder and Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Matanos Aniyim 8:10-11) says that there is no greater mitzvah than ????? ???????
At least one of them (Marc Rich) wasn’t even in prison. Secondly, if that’s such a big issue, then why didn’t everyone get involved in that. Why only New Square? And why only those four people?
Additionally the elected position in question wasn’t an executive one but rather a legislative one
The OP did not make any differentiation (and neither did you in your comment that led to this thread).
The Wolf
Marc Rich paid for his pardon with cash, not votes. It had nothing to do with New Square’s efforts. “Why only New Square?” 1) It wasn’t only NS who expended efforts and 2) Even if it were, then the question would be on those who didn’t. And PS efforts are not only expended on those people. But a community has a greater primary responsibility for its own. I said the primary reason was the first (PS).
@OP – I would vote for a woman if she was qualified. It is sexist to say otherwise
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.