WolfishMusings

Taking the children to school, going to shul, buying necessities (not stam shopping-shpatziring outside), and other errands or necessary functions. And even there if it is avoidable is should be avoided. (Maybe for example you can get groceries ordered by phone and delivered; and other examples like that.) Basically when its necessary its okay; when it isn’t necessary it should be avoided where possible.

So, would I be correct in stating that in your household, any of the following activities are verbotten:

— A wife meeting her sister or friend for lunch.

— Taking the kids (especially daughters) to the playground

— Going to a wedding of a friend (I’ll assume you’ll allow for close relatives)

— Buying a present for her husband/parents/friends (unless done online, of course)

— Going to school for a degree (online programs excepted)

— Stam taking a walk

— Going to a family get-together with extended family

— Attending non-mandatory school functions (teas, fundraisers, etc. — I’ll assume you allow parent-teacher meetings)

Am I correct that all these activities are verbotten in your household for your wife and daughters?

The Wolf

Heh. Personally, sometimes some of the “silly talk” we have is the best talk we have. 🙂 Eeeees and I had quite a few laughs and a good time designing a whole conversation around a typo that I made in an IM to her earlier in the day.

The Wolf

I know married women who are physicians, lawyers, engineers, and other professionals. Not one of them has been pushed into her career by her husband. In fact, nearly all of them began their professional education and training before meeting their husbands.

Well, in my case, Eeees is currently in the process of obtaining a Master’s Degree for the purpose of following a career. I did not push her into it. I encouraged her to follow whatever path she wants — if she wants to be a SAHM, then I was for it. If she wanted to go for a career, I would support her too.

In the end, she did both. When the kids were younger, she was a SAHM. Now that my kids are all teens and don’t need the full-time attention as much, she’s pursuing a career.

The Wolf

Wolf, is it just me or is Hereorthere extrapolating from my words?

To be fair, I wasn’t really following your argument with him all that closely. My latest response was simply a request for evidence for all his assertions.

I feel a little lost at his anger directed towards me based on things I didn’t say. Are my posts unclear or am I writing in a way that doesn’t make sense?

Generally, I’ve found your writing to be clear and sensible.

In any event, short of a personal insult, there’s no reason for him to get angry — and I did not notice any personal insults.

The Wolf

I really think this has been exhausted. We are being repetitive here. This has been all addressed.

Actually, you did not address CH’s question. To wit:

So what what is your point by bringing this Mishna? If your point was to prove that women are not eaual because they are under someone’s reshus, I proved you wrong.

The Wolf

It is a deep concept.

Try me. I’m no genius, but I think I can try to wing it.

The Wolf

Your language of “but not because of the pasuk” is far different than your claim now that “The point was that my answer would be the same even absent the pasuk.” Your original terminology clearly indicates your disregard if not contempt for the pasuk.

Fair enough criticism. Call it a poor choice of words on my part.

I said that I think you have the right to surrender your rights. That in no way shape or form indicates that “Obviously it’s not a mandatory halacha.”

If I can waive my rights, then it’s obviously not mandatory.

We have an explicit pasuk in the Torah that a man rules his wife. It is clear, unambiguous, and black and white in so many words. It is part of the Torah HaKedosha. Period.

We also have an explicit pasuk in the Torah that a woman gives birth in pain. It is clear, unambiguous, and black and white in so many words. It is part of the Torah HaKedosha. Period. And yet, if it were possible for a woman to give birth without pain (through technological means) you have not indicated that this would be a problem. Why? Why are the two different?

The Wolf

Do you care to comment on 80’s point, that it says “will”, not should?

I did not realize it was a point. I thought it was merely a correction.

The same pasuk says she shall desire her husband. Do you feel its okay if she neglects that part of the pasuk?

No — but not because of the pasuk, but because it is obviously detrimental to the marriage.

And more importantly than all that, I’ve cited that the ruling is actual halacha and the Torah ideal, not just a curse.

And yet, you’ve said above it’s okay for me to “violate” halacha by insisting that it not be that way. Obviously it’s not really halacha then, is it?

The Wolf

Analogies tend not to be perfect.

Yes, but in order for it to be valid, it has to have *some* commonality (other than the one you are trying to assert by bringing the analogy in the first place).

Please indicate what the commonality is between a marriage and a kingdom that led you to draw the analogy.

The Wolf

an explicit pasuk in the Torah.

So, do you think it’s wrong for women to take painkillers during childbirth? It’s also an explicit pasuk in the Torah that women should bear forth children in pain (or sorrow).

The Wolf

My point was that in relation to the King, the Queen was under his jurisdiction.

I understood that. But my point that your analogy is flawed still remains by virtue of the fact that a marriage is NOT a kingdom for the reasons I explained above.

Also, your silence regarding your assertion that Chazal do not argue about metzius is deafening.

The Wolf

Wolf: I don’t know why you bother.

Primarily because I enjoy a good argument.

The Wolf

Is one ashamed that the King of his country is his ruler?

If your kingdom consisted of only the king and one other s/he might be.

Can two people be called a kingdom?

The Wolf

Clearheaded,

You missed the point. *I* don’t have any questions about Iyov, Ben Sorer UMoreh or any of the other points I mentioned. To me they aren’t contradictions, they are arguments. I’m perfectly fine with one Tanna saying Iyov existed and the other saying that it’s just a parable. I don’t have a problem with one Tanna saying a BSUM never existed and the other saying that not only did he, but he even sat on his grave.

My question wasn’t about Iyov, BSUM or any of the other topics I mentioned — it was about Kasha’s statement that Chazal never argue about metzius when they very clearly do. I don’t have a problem with Chazal arguing about metzius. Kasha, for some unknown reason, seems to think this is an impossibility.

The Wolf

Just speculating on my part, but perhaps one was referring to a physical sense and the other a metaphysical sense.

Doubtful. I’m positive they were arguing about the reality. The argument about BSUM in Sanhedrin makes it clear that they were arguing about physical reality of whether or not there was a BSUM.

The Wolf

Yes, and no. Yes, and no.

Kasha,

What does that mean?

The choices are mutually exclusive. Either Iyov existed, or he didn’t. Either Beis Din executed a Ben Sorer UMoreh or they didn’t.

In any event, this proves that your statement about Chazal not arguing metzius is clearly wrong — as both of these arguments exist in the Gemara.

The Wolf

1. There is no reason to put eilu v’eilu aside. 2. Correct, the latter Tanna is not wrong. What the latter Tanna said still stands in a certain manner that Tanna intended it, even if it isn’t paskened for the situation discussed. It’s a deep concept, and I probably am not the one who can explain it well.

I’m not talking about where they argue about p’sak. I’m talking about where they argue about metzius in a mutually exclusive way. One of them must be (at the physical level) wrong.

The Wolf

There are no instances in the Gemorah of Chazal being wrong. Period.

So, when one Tanna disproves the statements of another Tanna, is not the latter Tanna wrong (eilu v’eilu aside)?

It is indisputable that what they say is from a divine source. Period. You cannot dispute the word of Chazal. Period.

How is that indisputable? Chazal themselves held that it was possible for them to be wrong — see the dispute regarding where the sun goes at night.

The Wolf

BTW, Kasha,

My sarcastic reply to you aside, I just want you to know that I was offended at your even suggesting (in an attempt at humor) that I subscribe to the notion of papal infallibility.

I believe that we can “fight fair” and have a good argument despite our disagreements without going over the line and questioning each other’s beliefs in HKBH.

I don’t mind a good ribbing every now and again, but there are some things that are just over the line. I would NEVER suggest — even in humor — that you were a mechalel shabbos, a person who held idolatrous beliefs, or anything else of that nature. I would ask that you treat me the same way.

The Wolf

Wolf, would you make the same argument about Moshe Rabbeinu being human and infallible as you do about Chazal?

When he wasn’t speaking “Mipi HaGevurah” he certainly was fallible. We know he made mistakes.

Chazal were molachim, they were not mere mortals

Obviously not. There are plenty of instances in the Gemara where Chazal were wrong — either where they admitted a mistake or where their opinions were disproven by other members of Chazal.

and whatever they taught was from a divine source.

I suppose this is a separate discussion of whether or not everything Chazal said is from a divine source or if they were affected by their contemporary culture and science. Obviously I hold the latter. You’re free to hold the former if you like, but I’m free to disagree with you.

While I generally agree with you wolf, I take exception this time with your line regarding our great Rabbis because thinking that their words do not apply to us has led numerous people down a slippery slope.

I appreciate the vote of confidence. But whether or not Chazal were influenced by their societies is really independent of whatever effect that may have on other people.

Suppose (hypothetically, again) it were proven that Chazal were mortal human beings. Incredible, saintly, righteous human beings… but human beings nonetheless. Would you say to hide the truth because it presents a “slippery slope?”

Now whatever Chazal have said about woman can apply. That does not make women inferior in intellect. Chazal just show that womens’ thinking is inferior in the situations that they spoke about.

I believe the Torah Temimah meant is as a general rule and not in specific “situations.” But I could be wrong on that. If so, please advise with sources.

However that doesn’t mean womens intellect is inferior in all situations. In fact in other situations their intelligence might be superior. Women and men think differently, their thought patterns are different

I don’t have any arguments on this point.

and women learning to be rabbas are not learning like men are learning in serious yeshivas.

I mentioned nothing about women being “rabbas.”

That does not mean women have overall lower intelligence. Not at all. Women have a binah yesierah. It is a DIFFERENT KIND OF INTELLIGENCE THEN MEN. It’s as simple as that. Women learn differently and think differently, but we are not less intelligent.

I might even agree with that statement.

Now were I a man who learns Torah, I would be able to bring numerous sources on the intelligence of women. And I am also certain I would find sources which state that womens’ intelligence is greater in certain situations then men.

I’m repeating what I said before, no gender as a whole is better or smarter than the other, just different, each with their maalos and chasronos.

So, what does all that mean? You state that women aren’t less intelligent — just intelligent in different ways. But is that what the Torah Temimah said?

The Wolf

I’m saying, at minimum, no one since them has the right to dispute them. No one since them has reached as close to the point of infallibility, as Chazal has. I can say that without even attributing infallibility to them.

Fair enough. I disagree, but your explanation is logical.

Can one say that culture and societal norms have changed since their times? Can one say that people, their perceptions of each other and the way they interact with each other has changed since their statements?

The Wolf

There were no “personal feelings” (to use your terminology) on matters involved.

So you think it’s utterly impossible and incomprehensible that anything that Chazal or a latter rav says could possibly be influenced by their place/time/culture? You think that everything they said was said in a vacuum and eternally true regardless of changing social norms across the centuries/continents/cultures?

The Wolf

The were malochim

No, they were people. Saintly, wise, incredible people… but they were people.

I ascribe infallibility to only one Being… and it’s not Chazal.

The Wolf

Wolf, I personally think that at the time Chazal said it, it was true. The general population was rather uneducated and illiterate, very few had decent educations.

We had a discussion a while back (in fact, it was about this specific statement of the Torah Temimah) about whether statements by Chazal or latter rabannan could be influenced by the time/place/culture in which they lived or whether they were said in a vacuum (so to speak) and are eternally true regardless of any latter cultural/temporal/geographic changes.

My statement on the matter was that of course statements by Chazal (or anyone else) are influence by the times/place/culture in which they live. I don’t see how it could be possible to say otherwise. Everyone, Chazal and latter rabanan included, grew up in a place and time with a surrounding culture. All of them had experiences in their lives — good and bad — that shaped who they were. Everyone has personal feelings and opinions on matters. Everyone is affected by the surrounding culture and the events of the day — and that influence shapes what people say.

The Wolf

There are certainly physical differences.

Not every woman is muscularly weaker than every man, etc.

Would it not be surprising if there were not intellectual and cognitive differences as well?

Granted. This is true.

The question is, what are the general differences in intellect, emotional tendencies, intuitiveness, etc. Pretty hard to define, pretty open to differences of opinion.

But if it’s so open to differences of opinion, does it really have any meaning at all? If we can’t even quantify how these traits are distributed among the genders, how can we make any statements about them one way or the other?

What do Chazal say about this? That’s what matters to me, not what would make me happy, or what would conform to my little american mind, of which I am so proud.

Fair enough… but what if (hypothetically) it could be shown that Chazal were wrong. What if it could be shown that, with regard to learning ability, women are just as capable as men?

The Wolf