Sunday, July 16, 2023

Igros Moshe: The statement found in Rashi (Menachos 43b) that a wife is a slave to her husband is nonsense

Igros Moshe[1](O.C. 6 5.2): [Menachos 43b  It was taught: R. Judah used to say, A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: who has made me a Jew’, ‘. . . . who has not made me a woman’; and ‘ . . . who has not made me a brutish man’. R. Acha b. Yacov once overhead his son saying the blessing … who hast not made me a brutish man’, whereupon he said to him, ‘And this too!’ Said the other, ‘Then what blessing should I say instead?’ [He replied,] . . . who hast not made me a slave’. And is not that the same as a woman?[Rashi explains because in terms of the obligation of doing mitzvos – a woman and a slave are equal]— A slave is more degraded.]  Look at Rashi (Menachos 43b) who explains in his first explanation to the question of saying a beracha “who has not made me a slave” is the same saying “who has not made me a woman", that “the wife is also a slave to her husband as a slave is to his master.” If I weren't afraid I would say that it is necessary to erase the first explanation of Rashi. Because G-d forbid for Rashi to say this ridiculous statement. That is because according to the Torah there is no obligation for the wife to do anything for the husband except for having normal marital relations. And even in regard to intercourse, he is in fact more obligated to her because he also has a negative Torah commandment not to deprive her of sexual satisfaction. In fact it is only a decree of the Sages that requires that her work belongs to her husband. Corresponding to this requirement to work for him, he is required to feed her. But the only work she is obligated to do is house work and not to work in the field. She also has some obligation regarding wool - which is an easy job that women typically do. See Shulchan Aruch EH simon 80. Her meals are his obligation since she should not have it any worse than her family and his family and certainly not less than what she typically eats.   Similarly he is obligated to provide her clothing according to what the women of that city typically get as well as according to the standard of his and her family. That is because she is to go up in her standard of living with him and not go down. In addition he is obligated to honor her and he cannot leave the house without her permission except to go to his job that is known to her. In fact we see from all this the opposite of her being his slave. He is obligated to do all the work to earn a living as is stated in the Kesubah. Even if it means hiring himself out according to Tosfos (Kesubos 63). Thus we see that the husband is more of a slave to her then she is to him. This Rashi requires further study (tzorech iyun gadol).





[1] אגרות משה (אורח חיים ו:ב.ה):  מעיר על מה שפירש רש"י שאשה שפחה לבעלה כעבד
[ועיין ברש"י [מנחות מג:] שפירש בפירוש ראשון על הקושיא היינו אשה, דאשה נמי שפחה לבעלה כעבד לרבו. ולולא דמסתפינא הייתי אומר שצריך למחקו דח"ו לרש"י לומר דברי הבל כזה, דמן התורה הא ליכא שום שעבוד על האשה לבעלה חוץ מתשמיש, ולענין תשמיש הוא משועבד לה יותר דהא עליו איכא גם איסור לאו, ורבנן שתיקנו שמעשה ידיה לבעלה הא כנגד זה חייב במזונות ואינה מחוייבת לעשות רק עניני הבית ולא עבודת שדה ומעט עשיה בצמר שהיא מלאכה קלה ממלאכות שדרכן של בנות העיר בזה, עיין בש"ע אהע"ז ריש סי' פ', והמזונות מחוייב שלא לגרוע מכפי דרך משפחתה ודרך משפחתו ובכל אופן לא פחות מכפי שהוא אוכל, וכן שמחוייב בכסות לפי מנהג בנות העיר ולפי דרך המשפחות שלו ושלה דעולה עמו ואינה יורדת עמו ומחוייב לכבדה ואינו יכול לילך מביתו בלא רשותה רק למלאכתו הידוע לה, והבעל אדרבה מחוייב לעשות כל המלאכות שצריך האדם לפרנסה כלשון שתיקנו לכתוב בכתובה, ואף להשכיר עצמו סברי התוס' בשם ר' אליהו בכתובות דף ס"ג ד"ה באומר שהוא מחוייב, ונמצא שאדרבה הוא יותר עבד לה מכפי שהיא שפחתו וצע"ג].

112 comments :

  1. This, of course, is the kind of statement that I like. But let me explain why:

    1) The ability of an Acharon to say that the statement attributed to a major Rishon is "ridiculous". This does not mean any Tom Dick or Harry can speak like this about Rishonim.

    2) whether in fact, RMF is saying that Rashi himself could not have written this?

    3) Sometimes Gedolim criticise their counterparts, but a major authority from 1000 years ago is much more difficult. Rambam and Raavad were able to criticise each other, but nobody can speak about them in such a manner today.

    4) Does logic trump authority?

    ReplyDelete
  2. ונמצא שאדרבה הוא יותר עבד לה מכפי שהיא שפחתו וצע"ג] no truer words were ever said :)no one would argue this point with Reb Moishe not even Harav Henkin z"L

    ReplyDelete
  3. this is not an issue of logic. Rav Moshe said that the statement is not true

    ReplyDelete
  4. He actually left it as צע״ג. He also said he was too scared to change it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting that Artscroll omits Rashi's first explanation altogether and only mentions his second explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. עוה"פ רואים איך שהאג"מ מוחק מה שאינו לפי רוחו, גם רצה למחוק קטעים שלמים ברמב""ן עי' מסורת משה ח"א

    ReplyDelete
  7. that was also the complaint of the Tzitz Eliezar in his debate with Reb Moshe dealing with abortion

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1- What did the "problematic" girsa say more than this gemara:

    (ולא יפה היה לו לאדם הראשון שנטלו ממנו צלע אחת ונתנו לו שפחה לשמשו" )סנהדרין לט".?

    2- Does the word "הבל" appear in similar context, in the earlier volumes of IM?

    ReplyDelete
  9. And don't forget the Sefer Chassidim Al HaTorah.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I suggest that unlike nowadays, the essence of marriage in times gone by was that a woman was like a slave to the husband. This was not an obligation but a fact, just as an animal is a beast of burden as a fact and not by decree. Chazal added rabbinical obligations onto wives to give legal force to this state of affairs. We are so far from this way of life that Rav Moshe found the notion ridiculous. Not so Rashi who witnessed this sort of marriage on an ongoing basis.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rashi gives two explanations why?
    Rav Moshe had at least the same knowledge about the past that you have and he clearly disagrees. What religious obligation were added by rabbinic obligation are you referring to? Are they different than what Rav Moshe states?

    Rav Moshe is clearly basing himself on the halachic status of women and he says that the husband is more of a slave than the wife

    It could be that the mussar literature regarding the subordination of women was an attempt to convince women to be less dominate

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am arguing that a woman's servitude is a fact (metzi'us), not an obligation. Chazal added an obligation which makes her a moredes if she refuses to comply. Before the gezeirah, a woman who refused to comply was like an animal that refuses to work with no halachic consequences. What does Rashi saying two explanations have to do with it? I am discussing the mechanics of the first one.

    ReplyDelete
  13. could you be more specific. When was a wife's metzius that of a slave? When did they add an obligation that makes her a moredes for not complying?. Do you claim that today a women's halachic status is that of a slave to her husband?

    Why did Rashi give two explanations? Usually it is because one of them is not adequate. What is wrong that requires an additionally explanation? The first says that her obligation to her husband makes her a slave. The second says her level of mitzva obligation is that of a slave.

    ReplyDelete
  14. According to Rashi's first explanation modern wives too are like slaves because that is the metzius of the marital bond. This metzius may even have existed in marriages before matan Torah. At some stage (no idea when) Chazal added obligations to force her to do certain things for the husband's benefit, perhaps as part of Chazal's role in regulating society. Rashi may have regarded this as a big chiddush and therefore added a second explanation.
    In short, I am saying that some concepts are "fact" and not due to legalities or obligations.

    ReplyDelete
  15. what you say that Chazal added obligations - were in fact obligations in return for obligations on the husband. Thus it was not that they were slaves and that slavery was institutionalized by Chazal. According to the Torah the wife has no obligation to the husband - accept for normal marital relations. Other obligations were added to ensure that the husband took proper care of her - and in exchange for this added degree of protection she was obligated to provide normal service for the husband. If she doesn't want that protection then she doesn't have to accept it

    שו"ת להורות נתן חלק יג סימן ק
    ב) ומעתה יש לעיין דאמאי נקראת האשה קנינו של הבעל, דהרי כל החיובים שיש על האשה לבעלה אינם אלא מדרבנן, וכמבואר ברמב"ם (פי"ב מאישות ה"א), כשנושא אדם אשה וכו' יתחייב לה בעשרת דברים ויזכה בארבעה דברים, והעשרה שלשה מהן מן התורה ואלו הן שארה כסותה ועונתה וכו', והשבעה מדברי סופרים וכולן תנאי בית דין הן וכו', ואלו הן לרפאותה אם חלתה ולפדותה אם נשבית וכו', והארבעה שזוכה בהם כולם מדברי סופרים, ואלו הן להיות מעשה ידיה שלו, ולהיות מציאתה שלו, ושיהיה אוכל כל פירות נכסיה בחייה, ואם מתה בחייו יירשנה עיין שם. ושם (פי"ד ה"ח) כתב, האשה שמנעה בעלה מתהמ"ט היא הנקראת מורדת, ושואלין אותה מפני מה מרדה, אם אמרה מאסתיהו ואינו יכולה להבעל לו מדעתי, כופין אותו להוציא לשעתו לפי שאינה כשבויה שתבעל לשנוי לה, ותצא בלא כתובה וכו' עכ"ל. הרי דמן התורה אין שום שיעבוד להאשה כלפי בעלה, אלא שאם לא תעשה רצונו בידו לגרשה, ויש שמפסדת גם את הכתובה, אבל מכל מקום אין עליה חיוב לעשות דבר לבעלה נגד רצונה. [ועיין רמב"ם (פכ"א מאישות ה"י) כל אשה שתמנע מלעשות מלאכה מן המלאכות שהיא חייבת לעשותן, כופין אותה ועושה אפילו בשוט, וכתב עליו הראב"ד, מעולם לא שמעתי יסור שוטים לנשים אלא שממעט לה צרכיה ומזונותיה עד שתכנע עיין שם. ושיטת הרמב"ם צריכה ביאור, דאמאי יכול הבעל להכריחה לעשות מלאכה, ונימא שאם אינה רוצה לעשות מלאכה יגרשנה בלי כתובה, אבל באיזה כח יכריח אותה לעשות לו מלאכה בעל כרחה, ואף דחכמים תקנו לבעל מעשה ידיה, אין מזה הכרח שכופין אותה לעשות מלאכה, אלא שאם אינה רוצית לעשות מלאכה יגרשנה בלא כתובה. ועיין מגיד משנה וכסף משנה שם ואכמ"ל]. ועיין תוס' רי"ד גיטין (עו ב), דדוקא מעשה ידיה הן של הבעל, אבל גוף היד אינו שלו שיעשה הבעל בה כל תשמיש שהוא רוצה, כי אם מעשה ידיה שהן קצובים, כדתנן בכתובות ומה היא עושה לו משקל ה' סלעים וכו', אבל אינו יכול להכריחה לעשות לה יותר מן השיעור, או אם רוצה שתעשה לו שימוש קשה בידה כגון לחפור בשדהו וכיו"ב אינו רשאי, שאין כל שימוש היד קנוי לו עיין שם.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am coming to answer the Rav Gestetner's question. The kinyan of kiddushin gives the husband a slave, not legally but factually. The rabbinic obligations are to impose legal obligations on the wife.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Shame on you for publicizing this issue
    It's not respectful to rashi neither to reb Moshe, please take it down

    ReplyDelete
  18. ואני אומר שהרבה מדברי אג"מ יש למחוק, וע"ל שהעיז נגד רש"י שדבריו נאמרין ברוה"ק

    ReplyDelete
  19. the point is that if it is a mistake then obviously Rashi didn't say it

    ReplyDelete
  20. you are wrong. Unless of course you want to do away with the Gra also?

    Are you claiming that there are no errors in Rashi - either text added by the printers or amendations made by the printers.


    ReplyDelete
  21. obviously Rav Gestetner disagrees with you as does the gemora - there is no kinyan of her as a wife but there is a kinyan of the slave.

    You claim that is simply a legal technicality - but in fact she is not a slave in law or in fact. The rabbinic obligations were not to create the legal reality of a slave.

    Now it could be that some husbands try and convince their wives that they are slaves - but this is clearly not justified by the halacha

    ReplyDelete
  22. In addition - you are assuming that not only did Rav Moshe make a mistake by saying such a thing, but that the publishers of the Igros Moshe - including Rav Dovid Feinstein and Rav Reuben Feinstein were also mistaken?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I don't mind disagreeing with Rav Gestetner. I say that the wife is a slave in fact but not in law.

    ReplyDelete
  24. http://thetorah.com/tikkunei-soferim-and-the-ironic-emendation-of-rashis-interpretation/

    did Rashi say that the Rabbi altered the text of the Torah?

    ReplyDelete
  25. ולא יפה היה לו לאדם הראשון שנטלו ממנו צלע אחת ונתנו לו שפחה לשמשו (סנהדרין לט)

    א״כ מה ת״ל איש איש סיפק בידו לעשות אשה אין סיפק בידה לעשות מפני שרשות אחרים עליה (קידושין ל)

    והטעם שנפטרו הנשים ממצוות עשה שהזמן גרמה לפי שהאישה משועבדת לבעלה לעשות צרכיו ואם הייתה מחוייבת במצוות עשה שהזמן גרמה אפשר שבשעת עשיית המצוה יצווה אותה בעלה לעשות מצוותו אם תעשה מצוות הבורא ותניח מצוותו אוי לה מבעלה ואם תעשה מצוותו ותניח מצוות הבורא אוי לה מיוצרה.לפיכך פטרה הבורא ממצוותיו כדי להיות לה לשלום עם בעלה (אבודרהם - תיקון התפילות שער ג')

    ReplyDelete
  26. So even if Rav Moshe gives a different explanation to the reasoning behind the ptur of mitzvas reason, and holds that it is a de'oraissa. So then Rashi can also hold this way.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ur just plain naive

    ReplyDelete
  28. you didn't mention that the first statement has nothing to do with Chazal - but is the view of the emperor's daughter

    The Emperor4 once said to Rabban Gamaliel:5 Your God is a thief, for it is written, And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man [Adam] and he slept [and He took one of his ribs etc.]6 Thereupon his [the Emperor's]7 daughter said to him: Leave him to me and I will answer him, and [turning to the Emperor] said: ‘Give me a commander.’8 ‘Why do you need him?’ asked he. — ‘Thieves visited us last night and robbed us of a silver pitcher, leaving a golden one in its place.’ ‘Would that such visited us every day!’ he exclaimed. ‘Ah!’ she retorted, ‘was it not to Adam's gain that he was deprived of a rib and a maidservent presented to him in its stead to serve him?’

    The second source does not say that she is a slave - but simply says that respecting her husband comes before respecting her father.

    Said Rab Judah, This is its meaning: All precepts concerning a father, which are incumbent upon a son to perform for his father, both men and women are bound thereby. We have [thus] learnt here what our Rabbis taught: [Ye shall fear every man his father, and his mother]:32 ‘man,’I know it only of man; how do I know it of woman?33 When it is said: ‘Ye shall fear,’ two are mentioned. If so, why state man? A man possesses the means to fulfil this, but a woman has no means of fulfilling this, because she is under the authority of others.34 R. Idi b. Abin said in Rab's name: If she is divorced, both are equal.

    The third source is not slavery but says in order for there to be shalom bayis she needs to be available to do the jobs that are needed for her husband and household. There G-d has exempted her from those mitzvos which might cause conflicts.

    So thank you for the source but they don't contradict Reb Moshe's view

    ReplyDelete
  29. So says the naive person, RMF had the habit of declaring anything he didn't like a forgery

    ReplyDelete
  30. you have already indicated your dislike of Reb Moshe's views. Can't please everyone. Clearly the majority view is not in agreement with you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I may be in a minority but my view is valid

    ReplyDelete
  32. I might be in the majority but my view is still valid

    ReplyDelete
  33. With all due respect,
    The second source says רשות אחרים עליה.
    Reshus means jurisdiction. It means he is her boss.
    With the third source, by your understanding, a man should also be exempt due to his obligations to her. So we see from here that The Torah recognizes the fact that the husband is the one who makes commands and not the wife, (As he writes יצווה אותה בעלה לעשות מצוותו) and The Torah supports this.
    With the first source, Let me first ask you why you understood that it means The Emperor's daughter and not Rabbon Gamliel's. And second of all we see from there, al kol panim, that that is the way it is traditionally. For that testimony anyone quoted in The Gemara and not disputed is a viable source.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Below excerpt from http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/1105rashi.asp

    Sure doesnt sound like Rashi thought that a wife is a slave.


    2. Rashi Defends an Unfortunate Woman, before 1105

    Two people came to argue their case before Rabbi Solomon. The wife complained that her husband had divorced her but had not treated her in accordance with Jewish custom. He answered: "I have divorced you in accordance with the law. You have no claim, not even to the amount stipulated in the marriage contract, for I was deceived when I married you. It is evident that you are afflicted with skin trouble, and the signs of this disease appear on you, on your nose; and your face in general is breaking out with boils. Before your marriage you yourself suffered from this disease which you got from your family, some of whom are also afflicted with this sickness, and when I married you I was unaware of your hidden defects."

    "It's not so," she answered. "I was a hale and hearty woman when entering into marriage, and as for your saying that signs of a skin disease are visible on me, that is not so and never will be, for my whole body is in a healthy condition." There were, however, two warts that had appeared on her face due to the suffering and vexation which she had experienced after her husband had driven ha from his house, but concerning this a number of members of the community, who had known the husband for many years and bad heard nothing of this trouble, testified: "She was a healthy woman when she entered into marriage, and we have never noticed at signs of skin trouble."

    The following decision was given by the rabbi in this dispute. First let me extend my greetings to those who have directed this question to me. Inasmuch as no physical defects were noticeable in this woman while she was in her father's house, and they have developed only since her marriage, in her husband's house, he has therefore no claim against her on the ground that she was physically unfit.

    That man is conducting himself in a bad way and has shown that he is not acting like one of our father Abraham's children whose nature it is to be kind to his fellowman, and particularly so to his own flesh with whom he has entered the covenant of marriage. If that husband had set his mind on keeping his wife as much as he had set his mind on getting rid of her, her charm would have grown on him. Behold our rabbis have said [Sotah 47a2] "Every spot has a charm for those who live in it," even though it may be cursed with bad water and barren land. Similar is the charm exerted by a woman on her husband, and happy the man who has been fortunate enough to get such a wife and to acquire through her a share in life eternal. Even among those who deny God we find many who do not reject their wives and whose wives in turn act in like manner toward them, for they believe that the good they do serves as an expiatory sacrifice for the sins they have committed. But this fellow, though a member of the household of our Father in heaven, has acted cruelly toward the wife of his youth as God himself can testify.

    According to the law of right it is incumbent upon him to treat her as custom prescribes for all Jewish women; and if he does not care to receive her back in kindness and in respect, then he must divorce her and pay her the entire amount stipulated in her marriage contract.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Reshus does not mean slave. If you are in a car or plane - then you are in the reshus of the driver or captain. It doesn't mean that you are his slave. It does mean that if there is conflict between honoring husband or father - the husband takes precedence. It is not an issue of slavery. If you are on someone's property - reshus hayachid - it doesn't mean that you are a slave to the property owner.

    Yes there is a hierarchy - but that does not mean slavery. If she doesn't want to listen - i.e., accept him - she is not forced to comply with his wishes. She is not a slave.

    regarding the first source I quoted the Soncino translation which states - based on a medrash that it is the Emperor's daughter

    ReplyDelete
  36. Important point. Dr. Avraham Grossman's book "And he shall rule over you" is a full discussion of the views of the Rishonim regarding women. He notes that Rashi NEVER cites any source which says something negative about women. In fact even when there is only a negative source - he attempts to interpret in a positive fashion. And Rashi is the only Rishon who has is consistently positive about women.

    בחינה כוללת של יצירתו הענפה מעידה בבירור על תדמיתה החיבית של האישה במשנתו הן בפירושיו למקרא הן בפירושיו לתלמוד הן בתשובותיו

    ReplyDelete
  37. P. S. A wife is perhaps the kind of עבד of whom it is said, "כל הקונה עבד קנה אדון לעצמו
    "

    ReplyDelete
  38. It means that effectively it is a sort of slavery. Even if it isn't technically. Please please please admit that the sources I brought make the point well enough to support the first pshat in Rashi.

    ReplyDelete
  39. nope - we are not dealing with cases of slavery but simply a hierarchy . Rashi makes no statement that a wife is a slave in any other place. As I noted it is uncharacteristic of his comments .

    ReplyDelete
  40. In a nutshell, Rashi and Rav Moshe disagree on this point? Rav Moshe seems to be arguing against Rashi.

    ReplyDelete
  41. But unlike the guy in the airplane who can disembark once landed and leave the reshus of the captain, the wife can't leave her husband's reshus if he doesn't wish to release her (and did not violate her rights.)

    ReplyDelete
  42. When referring to a comparison with a slave, is the term being used in this discussion akin to an Even Ivri or an Even Knani?

    ReplyDelete
  43. What makes you think I respect them more then there dad

    ReplyDelete
  44. If she doesn't want to be taken care of by her husband she doesn't have to do anything for him. If he doesn't like it his only option is to divorce her.

    ReplyDelete
  45. In a nutshell Rashi is not disagreeing with Rav Moshe and the Rashi is not from Rashi

    ReplyDelete
  46. I attended a shiur by Rav Yaakov Kaminetzki z"l where the halacha of mesubim for women was discussed and it was stated that women are not obligated because they are like slaves to the husband. However, nowadays that the women are chashuv as per the Raavya, they don't have to because of their chashivus. I asked Rav Yaakov which way is the ideal and he answered me neither. It depends on the status of society in the generation.

    ReplyDelete
  47. There is nothing negative about acknowledging the roles as they are. Women are wonderful that they serve their husbands. Jew are wonderful that they serve Hashem.

    ReplyDelete
  48. women are not slaves and it is negative to assert such when it isn't true

    ReplyDelete
  49. BetYouCantPushJustOneSeptember 7, 2016 at 2:46 AM

    The Rashi is not that complicated at all.

    In Tribal societies, women can be and were in the past slaves to men. In the nuclear family, the woman is not a slave to the man.

    Marriage is the exchange of a man's excess labor for the product of a woman's womb. The contractual exchange that takes place is where the man performs some type of exponential labor and then gives the woman some of the value of his labor in the form of food and shelter, and then the woman gives the man the fruits of her womb.

    The Left tries to obfuscate the basis for this very obvious contract by insisting through feminism and gender denialism that because we live in modern times where a woman can do the same job as a man, the form of the contract is deprecated. But it's not true. Women cannot perform any labor unless that labor is a type of job which deals with exponentializing the product of an existing core labor. All 'core' labors are done by men, just as all birthing of children is done by women.

    Rabbi David Eidenson wrote a brilliant article a while back on using the little-known halachic provision of 'pilegesh' to stem the tide of of the effects of feminism that are currently affecting Jewish communities.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Someone should have educated R Tam on that point. Oh wait...

    ReplyDelete
  51. So in a nutshell all Rav Moshe is doing is disputing the girsa of Rashi and saying it is a copyists error over the centuries and not what Rashi really wrote. Correct?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Rav Dovid Cohen explained (in a different context) that when R' Moshe would say that something found in a Rishon was a copyist's error, what was really going on is that he held it was wrong, but did not want to phrase his disagreement in those terms. This was on the Headlines radio program about the Zika virus.

    ReplyDelete
  53. how did he know this? Was it conjecture or did Reb Moshe tell him that?

    ReplyDelete
  54. You can listen here. It starts at about the 26 minute mark, for about 5 minutes.
    http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/52816-zika-virus-and-halacha/

    ReplyDelete
  55. I was bothered by this Rashi for another reason, in the Yerushalmi in brechos (9th perek) is says clearly says the reason why we say the beracha is because of Mitzva asay shezman gerama. If the entire reason we say the beracha is because of MAsZG then wouldn't that be the obvious pshat in the gemara

    ReplyDelete
  56. Today the man is the slave.

    ReplyDelete
  57. איך העיז נגד רש"י

    ReplyDelete
  58. you basically have the chassidic view while Reb Moshe was a Litvak

    ReplyDelete
  59. IIMTY, how do you know that?

    ReplyDelete
  60. who has the same basic requirement of mitzvos as a woman?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Is it heresy to say that a previous Gadol, eg a Rishon was wrong or mistaken on one subject? Why can Rambam say that Geonim were wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  62. there are views amongst the chassidim which say it is heresy

    ReplyDelete
  63. Just curious: What does IIMTY mean?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Just checked both the Hebrew and English Artscroll. The English does say there is a first explanation but does not say what the first explanation is. However it does say it is explained in a sefer Tov v'Yashar. The Hebrew however does explicatively mention it and also refers to this sefer. sounds like they were more concerned with political correctness in English then in Hebrew

    ReplyDelete
  65. What does hasidisism have to do with it
    Is rashi said something then he believed it, saying that he didn't say it destroyes the Torah, because it gives ppl the right to discard anything they don't like as reb moshe did numerous times
    Rather say rashi was mistaken

    ReplyDelete
  66. you belief that there are absolutely no errors in the text of Rashi?!

    ReplyDelete
  67. There may be errors in the text of Rashi, but there does not seem to be any evidence from manuscripts that this is one of them.
    R' Moshe has a chazaka of disregarding statements of the Rishonim that he disagrees with by claiming, without any evidence, that is an error in transcription.

    ReplyDelete
  68. it is not clear whether Rav Moshe is rejecting it because it is a printing error or he disagrees with Rashi - either way he solidly rejects the statement

    ReplyDelete
  69. I agree with you on both counts. As I cited from R' Dovid Cohen, it may be that even when he says it is a printing error he is really disagreeing, כל שכן in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Perhaps the said Igros Moshe contains a copyist's error.

    To say that Rashi is an error is to say that for 1000 years, tens of editions of the Talmud, and millions of brilliant minds learning it, no one caught this glaring mistake comprising four whole words.

    This is not a typo, nor is there any natural cause to which to attribute such a mistake. It is only a "mistake" because Rav MOshe (with all due respect) found the idea expressed therein as ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Not necessarily. Are you claiming that errors going back 1000 years don't exist and have never existed? Reb Moshe is not giving a servra but simply saying that the claim that Rashi is making is simply not true. Instead of questioning Reb Moshe's right to question something found in Rashi - why not simply refute his argument?

    ReplyDelete
  72. read from the begining!!! two very important words!!!
    ל ו ל א ד מ ס ת פ י נ א
    ....לולא דמסתפינא הייתי אומר

    ReplyDelete
  73. read again
    לולא ד מ ס ת פ ינ א הייתי אומר

    ReplyDelete
  74. please tell me what the basis of Reb Moshe's reticence? Is it because he is rejecting Rashi's view or because he think it is a view that was inserted by someone else but he doesn't want to rock the boat and say the text should be corrected?

    ReplyDelete
  75. the second, as reb moshe writes
    ...דח"ו לרש"י לומר....
    meaning ח"ו to say that rashi would say such a thing

    ReplyDelete
  76. meaning chas v'shalom that this inserted text would actually have been said by Rashi

    ReplyDelete
  77. You cannot learn from one Pshat of Rashi to another!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Rashi doesn't say that she IS an Eved, only that she is LIKE an Eved - כעבד - big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Disrespect to RMF זצוק"ל has never bothered you before!

    ReplyDelete
  80. Interesting - and to be expected!

    ReplyDelete
  81. BetYouCantPushJustOneSeptember 8, 2016 at 11:03 PM

    http://torahhalacha.blogspot.ca/2014/11/pilegesh-solution-only-for-those.html

    ReplyDelete
  82. this is not learning from Rashi it is all over Shas

    ReplyDelete
  83. Before we go there, what is the difference between the two explanations that Rashi offered?

    Additionally, why are women exempt of certain Mitzvos? According to some Rishonim, it is in order to afford her that she should be able to fulfill her responsibilities to her husband (and therefore, children) unhindered.

    According to this explanation, It is quite possible to say that Rashi's intention was that she is cannot make the beracha since she is like a slave - meaning that the Torah exempted her from Mitzvos to not hinder her spousal responsibilities. (True, certain things may not be Biblical obligations, but the Rabbinical obligations were the spirit of the law, according to the explanation of why she is exempt in the first place.)

    The second explanation is all technical. She doesn't have those Mitzvos, just like a slave. There is no why - therefore there is no comparison at the root. Tye first explanation is a comparison at the root of the exemption. Of course, Rashi did not mean that she is truly a slave, in any form or shape. But they do have "genetic" likenesses...

    ReplyDelete
  84. On the contrary. I'm not questioning Reb Moishe's right to question something found in Rashi. Rav Moishe himself does not consider the possibilty of arguing with Rashi. Had he considered such a possibilty he would not have to resort to claiming the text is in error; he would simply have argued with Rashi.

    So the issue now is not can RMF argue with Rashi. The issue is what is the probability of this text being a mistake. I question the probability of a text being studied over many generations without anyone catching it.

    You ask "Are you claiming that errors going back 1000 years don't exist and have never existed?" Well, if you are referring to textual errors, I believe it depends on the scale of the error. If you're talking about a reish/dalet kaf/beis rabah/rava type of mistake, i believe it. If you're talking about an entire sentence mysteriously creeping into the text without anyone catching it over generations - no.

    ReplyDelete
  85. why do you think that Rashi wasn't meant to be understand that she is literally like a slave in some aspect. You might want to look at the Netziv (4:35)

    ReplyDelete
  86. My English Artscroll to Menachos 43b explains this way "But a slave is the same as a woman in regard to their degree of mitzvah obligation."

    The footnote on the bottom states: "Rashi's second explanation. The gemara in Chagigah 4a derives through a gezeirah shavah that Canaanite slaves are obligated only in the mitzvos in which women are obligated."

    Again, no mention whatsoever about Rashi's first explanation. (My copyright edition is from 2002, unless they updated it since).

    ReplyDelete
  87. I did not see the Netziv yet.
    If the Bach, Mahrshal, Mahrsha and Rashash did not change the wording, there is reason to assume that it may indeed have been written by Rashi. This leaves us with Rav Moshe's questions that she is not a slave in any way. I therefore suggest that Rashi is comparing the reasons why both are exempt of certain Mitzvoth. Do you disagree with this reasoning? Why?

    ReplyDelete
  88. then you only need the second answer of Rashi

    ReplyDelete
  89. The Artscroll gemorah I saw refers to a sefer Yashar V'Tov for an explanation of the first part of Rashi. I could not find any mention in that sefer however to an explanation. The Hebrew version explicitly mentions the first explanation and then says to look at the Sefer Yashar v'Tov.

    ReplyDelete
  90. look at the Rambam(Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah 21:9). The Rambam there says sodomy is permitted but then adds "as long as there is no emission of sperm"
    Rav Moshe notes this effectively prohibits sodomy - thus going against the rest of the Rambam where he says everything is permitted. In reality sodomy is permitted - at least by those who are not guided primarily by kabbala.

    Rav Kapach in his edition of the Mishna Torah which is based on a Yeminite manuscript says the phrase in fact was added and does not belong there as the prohibition of zera l'vatala is mentioned in 21:18. If you look at the Frankel Rambam he notes that the majority of Mishna Torah manuscripts do no have that phrase. Seems obvious that the phrase was added to the printed addition due to the kabbalistic view and is not the view of the Rambam. All the printed editions - except for Rav Kapach - after the phrase added. This error has been around since the time of printing - 500 years - and is still not be corrected. It is not unusual to have printed texts which when compared to original manuscripts have significant errors and these errors are not removed despite the awareness of the manuscript. look in the archives here for the topic of correcting texts based on manuscripts

    ReplyDelete
  91. Given that zera levatala is prohibited according to Rambam, how is sodomy permissible?

    ReplyDelete
  92. The example you provided, while perhaps an excellent example of a complete phrase finding its way into the text, does not contradict my premise. It only proves that an entire phrase can creep into the text and not be noticed for hundreds of years.

    It does not, however, prove that a statement that is so ridiculously "divrei hevel" can creep into the text without anyone noticing and at least remarking that something is amiss in this Rashi. The phrase in the mentioned Rambam was not queer enough for anyone to question its validity so long as it was understood to be the Rambam's words.

    An example closer to the Rashi in Menachos would be the famous פרשת פרה מדאורייתא which is first found in תוס' ברכות and brought in
    שו"ע או"ח קמו:ב תרפה:ז which many acharonim found baffling, until the גר"א in תרפ"ה found a simple solution: נסחא משובשת נזדמנה לו
    So here is an example of a הגהה מסברא which was preceded by others finding fault with the idea but not being so bold as to declare it a mistake.

    In this case of Rav Moshe, we have to assume that not only is this (1) a case of an entire phrase lodging itself into Rashi (something very rare), but (2) the phrase's content is "divrei hevel", and (3) no one else until RMF even deigned to remark on the "novelty" and "ridiculouslness" of the statement.

    Granted, there are statements to be found in Rishonim that are חידושים מוזרים but usually they do not escape the notice of חכמי הדורות . In order to claim that this statement is "divrei hevel", RMF would not only have to explain how the statement got there (which he did by saying that it is a mistake), but he would have to explain how רע"א והחת"ס וכל חכמי הדורות didn't at very least comment on the "hevel" nature of this statement. The מעשה רקח תפלה ז:ו quotes the Rashi without making a sound.

    ReplyDelete
  93. How is sodomy less zera levatala than pulling out before ejaculation to avoid pregnancy?

    ReplyDelete
  94. I gather you are not familiar with the literature based on Nedarim 20b which including Tosfos? Or as the rishonim put it - why isn't it zera l'vata to have relations with a pregnant wife, a minor, a barren woman, an older woman?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Would you be able to elaborate?

    ReplyDelete
  96. This is your original statement.

    So the issue now is not can RMF argue with Rashi. The issue is what is the probability of this text being a mistake. I question the probability of a text being studied over many generations without anyone catching it.
    You ask "Are you claiming that errors going back 1000 years don't exist and have never existed?" Well, if you are referring to textual errors, I believe it depends on the scale of the error. If you're talking about a reish/dalet kaf/beis rabah/rava type of mistake, i believe it. If you're talking about an entire sentence mysteriously creeping into the text without anyone catching it over generations - no.

    I just provided an example.

    Your response was "well what I meant was" - you just moved the goal post

    ReplyDelete
  97. I agree, as I acknowledged previously.

    However, it should be obvious that the underlying basis of my contention - the element of generation-spanning scrutiny and "peer review" of חכמי הדורות - would only apply to cases where the addition to the text contains some apparent fault.

    In the case you cited, there was nothing apparently faulty with the addition that would have made anyone jump out of their seat. It always appeared innocent enough, enabling it to escape the scrutiny of any reader of the text that would have threatened its perpetuation. The only way to have caught it would have been to compare it to previous copies, which is what happened in recent times.

    In the case of RMF's Rashi, while the possibility of forgery always exists, the entire basis for suspecting this specific line of being forged more than any other line the Shas over, is the idea expressed therein.

    I find it almost impossible to fathom how a line containing such a glaring error, apparent to every sane person, could have remained there and escaped all scrutiny until RMF declared it a forgery.

    My conclusion, therefore, would be that by RMF's declaring this a forgery, he is disagreeing with many generations of גדולי עולם who apparently found nothing out of the ordinary with this line.

    ReplyDelete
  98. sorry but I strongly disagree with you. Accepting the wording of the Rambam as it stands makes undercuts the understanding of the rest of that paragraph. It is not an innocent statement and anyone who has gone through the sugya - it should jump out that something is wrong. The fact that such an obvious error has not been changed in any printed edition other than Rav Kapach indicates something else is going on.

    In both cases we have statements which clearly are going against the texts and the other statements made by Rashi/Rambam. The fact that only Rav Moshe or Rav Kapach made a public statement about the issue is indicative of other factors then that gedolim didn't notice these errors

    ReplyDelete
  99. True. But avodas perekh is forbidden with an
    Eved Ivri while permitted with an Eved Knani. In this area, is a wife more like an Eved Ivri or an Eved Knani?

    Also here Rambam says
    א,טז [ט] כל עבד עברי או אמה עברייה--חייב האדון להשוותן אליו במאכל ובמשקה בכסות ובמדור, שנאמר "כי טוב לו עימך" (דברים טו,טז): שלא תהיה אתה אוכל פת נקייה והוא אוכל פת קיבר, אתה שותה יין ישן והוא שותה יין חדש, אתה ישן על גבי מוכין והוא ישן על גבי התבן, אתה דר בכרך והוא דר בכפר או אתה בכפר והוא בכרך--שנאמר "ויצא, מעימך" (ויקרא כה,מא). מכאן אמרו חכמים כל הקונה עבד עברי, כקונה אדון לעצמו.
    א,יז וחייב לנהוג בו מנהג אחווה, שנאמר "ובאחיכם בני ישראל איש באחיו"
    This is not so by an EK. My impression is that the דין for the wife is like that of the EE.

    In these areas, TREATMENT of the wife / slave is more relevant than requirement of mitzvos. So now one might argue that the wife is being equated with the EE despite that her requirement of mitzvos is like that of EK.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Interesting point. However if you go through the various discussions - she is consistently being compared to the eved kanani. Teruma for example she is called kinyan kaspo just like an eved kanani. So the legal mechanism is always comparing her to an eved kanani even though she might be treated more like an eved ivri.

    I haven't seen one discussion where she is compared to an eved ivri - if you know any please tell me where they are.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Does Rav Moshe explicitly say it's an error?
    He says if he wasn't afraid.... But he's not afraid to call it nonsense. So why is that any better than asking for it to be discarded?

    ReplyDelete
  102. If he rejects the Gemara based on sevara, why is anyone else who does that called an apikores?

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.