I have presented a number of posts regarding the Torah attitude towards women - in particular in marriage - where they are clearly described as being subordinate to their husbands. As a consequence I have attacked by some for being a nut or intellectual dishonesty - though no one has presented the "true" Torah view that contradicts what I have presented and no one has explained why an objective scholarly approach is a sign of being a nut. Clearly some people want their Judaism sanitized and subordinate to their own views i.e, they want to create G-d in their own image.
I have been criticized by those who claim that it is inappropriate or even a chilul haShem for daring to mention what the consensus of our traditional mainstream sources about women. Meaning that while they agree that my posts are accurately presenting the Torah view - it is best if people are ignorant of how our rabbis tell us how the Torah views women and marriage. That is a rather bizarre claim. On the one hand we are to dedicate our lives to learning about and living according to what rabbis tell us is G-d's will - but at the same time we are not supposed to learn what the Torah says about certain topics because that is a chilul HaShem?! How can G-d's will be a chilul HaShem?
On the other hand it is also accurately claimed that women and society are different today and that therefore they need to be treated differently the classic sources say. This is explained either that the Torah is outdate - chas v'shalom or that there are kabbalistic ideas which indicate as we come into Messianic times i.e., after 1740 - that women's role will come to be equal and perhaps superior to that of men. The only problem is that these kabbalistic views are minority opinions which are not very clear and have no basis in traditional sources and seemed to be used as a fig leave to cover the embarrassing consensus views.
I would like to start a serious discussion about how to reconcile the traditional views - which clearly are not acceptable to many if not most frum women and men - but which at the same time clearly represent the traditional consensus views of our greatest rabbis throughout history. Does this mean that the only solution is for people to submit themselves to the traditional view? Or as Rav Solveitchik put it, "we sacrificed out intellects on Mt. Sinai?" I think that there are alternatives.
I would appreciate if some people can contain their hysteric comments. I am concerned with reality - the reality of Torah and the reality of modern men and women. Any reconciliation has to be within the framework of traditional halachic reasoning and principles. This is a discussion for mature adults who are committed to the Torah and halacha. I am not interested in a solution which in essence says to abandon Yiddishkeit. And it really doesn't help in arriving at an answer by shooting at me - I am simply the messenger[to be continued]
I really feel very strongly that it's impossible to look at the status of women in Halacha as an isolated issue. It's simply one of the more prominent issues in which it's clear that our belief that the Torah (SheBichtav and SheBaal Peh) are timeless/eternal etc. are not so simple, or that, at the very least, the definition of timeless/eternal need to be looked at very closely.
ReplyDeleteOther topics include:
1 - Our attitude towards non-Jews, including whether we really believe that if not for דרכי שלום, we wouldn't be mechallel shabbat to save their lives.
2 - Slavery
3- Systems of government
4 - Corporal punishment
5 - Property rights
6 - The emphasis on uprooting Avoda Zara, which for all practical purposes hasn't been relevant for several millennia
My point is that simply having a discussion about how the Torah and Chazal treat women misses the big picture of how we relate to a system that was mostly built up in a completely different area.
Not everything said by even the greatest of rabbis is received Torah.
ReplyDeleteThe Gaonim already ruled that one should not follow the medical remedies given in the Gemara, and we don't follow it.
And even when something is a p'sak halacha, that is always the application of the Eternal Torah to real circumstances, and the circumstance can change. And that includes social circumstances. I will offer a couple of relevant examples that I hope will not be too controversial. First, the Mishna explicitly permits women to do shchita, even of Kodshim; the Rema forbids. Rav Soloveitchick used to explain that it was because Shochet had, in the interim, become a communal appointment for which women were not eligible. Going the other way, the Gemara forbids women to teach elementary school, and posekim as late as the Aruch Hashulchan bring this as halacha, because the fathers bring the children to school. Yet all segments of the community will have women teaching young students (at least the girls) because in fact, the mothers are at least as likely as the fathers to be bringing them.
I agree with you on this. I am also somewhat disappointed that my explanations were not embraced as they were there to explain the Torah perspective in the framework of a happy life.
ReplyDeleteI remeber RDE saying about the behavior of a husband in one of the high profile divorce cases that he took Chazal too literally and if you do so imho you will have problems of shalom bait. I don't like to view the situation as women being subordinate but rather men because of their obligations to learning and the public domain , it is more natural that they have a leadership role .
ReplyDeleteToday modern leadership cannot and does not rest on authority, position or title etc but being authoritative, having the greatness of personality and skills of inspiring people that makes them follow you. Respect and honour come from respecting others as the Mishnah says. One might be able to rule by fear , but this is artificial and usually exploitation. One of the sources , I think it was Rashi , that a man's position in the home is derived by being the source of all , being a provider on both a material and spiritual level. This has drastically changed but imho it just means that leadership style is more consensual. On the other hand it is written that it is a woman's wisdom that builds her home , maybe she has a leadership role but it is more indirect. I have noticed that women in general don't want classical leadership roles - I have noticed here in Israel where husbands have become shul rabbis - voluntary - the women say that it is OK but I am not going to be the Rabbanit or rebbentzin. I think it is worth mentioning that in parenting while corporal punishment is condoned or even recommended , there is no problem in saying that because people have changed and we live in a different world , corporal punishment is out. In fact parental leadership has taken on a different style , leading by greatness rather than by power , as in the words of the Steipler to his daughter , you have the mitzvah of kibud Av , while I have the duty not to impose myself on others. If we look at men's authority over women I often wonder how in past generations , maybe going back more than 150 years , that women of great rabbis did not cover their hair. it seems that being subordinate means accepting the ' indirect leadership role ' in supporting the husband's leadership and the good of the family of the whole. In a world , where the instruments of control no longer exist , structures have to become intrinsic , so men lead because of their greatness and consensual leadership and women use their wisdom to build their families and homes. Authority and leadership can come from the Torah only if it can sustain itself without the authority of the Torah. I was wondering how people involved in preparing couples for marriage and marriage counseling handle this issue ?
There is no chilul hashem involved in discussing this topic openly IMHO. There are only two Torah topics to be avaided: Maaseh Bereshit and Merkava. And this is clearly not one of them. Through this discussion and ohe discussions on this blog we may not convince DT but we may arrive at truth on the matter, and Hashem loves truth.
ReplyDeleteThe reason women are no longer subordinate is because the men are like you. You expect women to listen to a baal giva, out of control maniac like you?
ReplyDeleteOh no! This article is not well attuned to your target audience. You will probably lose followers...
ReplyDeleteI think some women would rather be miserable than be subordinate. I am serious. This conclusion is based on experience.
ReplyDeleteWith yichud, no laws have changed and they can't be changed, but according to the nature of society, we apply the more stringent or the more lenient shittos of Rishonim as appropriate. Women are permitted to teach only when a valid heter is present, such as if it is a married woman there is the Piskay Harosh who is matir and also the Bais Yosef who says it is only asur because men sometimes travel out of town, and otherwise it would be baala ba'ir, and we say that in the case that the man has a local job, this chumra doesn't apply. And if she isn't married, then the case isn't that she has a play group in her house, but she teaches in a school, and the Taz is matir is such a case.
ReplyDeleteWith shechita, you are probably correct that the reason is something like you said, but it is clearly stated as a 'minhag' to forbid and not a 'halacha', and obviously, while it is possible to have a minhag to be stringent even with something permissible, the opposite isn't possible.
With medicine, there are 2 reasons. 1 We don't necessary know the exact remedies and/or how to apply them. 2 The nature/circumstance changed. This can be true with medicine because it isn't a halacha, but the laws of The Torah are eternal and we can't say that circumstances could effect their viability. chas veshalom.
Other than the point of avods zara, with which chazal tell us the the yetzer hora has been abolished, the rest of the points you mentioned haven't changed in a fundamental way. We basically have the same things today but just packaged differently.
ReplyDeleteBeing treated as subordinate would make most people (women included) miserable.
ReplyDeleteIt is taught in Bais Yaakov's that "Isha ksheira osah retzon baalah" can be translated not only as "she does his will," but as "she makes his will."
ReplyDeleteNothing in halacha changed on any the issues you mentioned since Shulchan Aruch codified them.
ReplyDeleteWho is going to change the Halacha today, in your opinion?
ReplyDeleteIt is not clear that he is innocent
ReplyDeleteYou need a level of proof demonstrating guilt to jail someone, not merely be unclear he's innocent. He was freed because it was determined that level of proof was non-existent even though he was wrongly jailed for over 20 years on the false basis that such level of proof existed based on the alleged victim's false testimony.
ReplyDeleteWe are all subordinate, each of us to authorities as applicable. Women have certain rights in a marriage with which they are treated wonderfully, and also certain requirements with they must abide by. There IS a difference between genders, unlike what some crazy progressives today want to claim. There is therefore a difference in roles. If anyone has a problem with that, than that person is problematic.
ReplyDeleteEverything can be taken out of context, and intended meanings can be twisted. Even if you want to add pshatim to mamarei chazal, you can't delete the simple clearly intended pshat. It clearly means that she does her husband's will.
ReplyDeleteno he was released because she lied about one detail - which involved the her being abused by her stepfather
ReplyDeleteImho it does not mean she does the will of some jerk of a husband , maybe part of the problem is that he is not the person - that can elicit respect and honor because of who he is and his ability to inspire . The same goes with parenting - if you are not a ' father ' , it won't help that the Torah tells a son to behave in a certain way , today people have authority because of who they are
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wonderful about the way the wife is treated in the “classic” depiction of marriage on this blog.
ReplyDelete“The wife is enjoined to act in accordance with her spouse’s will, even in instances where she disagrees. Practically, this would mean that if a couple disagrees on issues ranging from where to live, choosing a school for their children, to simply whether or not to invite guests to a Shabbat meal, the final word would be the husband’s.”
“Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 15:20): And thus our Sages have commanded that the woman honor her husband to an extreme degree and the fear of him should be on her and she should do all her deeds according to what he says and he should be in her eyes as a ruler or king. She should orient her activities according to that which he desires and stay away from that which he hates.”
“Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezar (Chapter 14) notes that this is one of the curses of a woman and she should have her ear bored as a permanent slave and as a maidservant. The Radal says that this teaches that it has been decreed that a woman always has to pay attention to the words of her husband. It is logical that the reason for the practice of piercing a woman’s ears for jewelry is an allusion to the fact that she is enslaved to her husband as is noted in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezar. If so then why isn’t the expression in this verse “He shall rule over you” explained according to this understanding [and instead the gemora says it means that she can’t asked openly for intercourse]? … Nevertheless it definitely would appear that the verse doesn’t lose its literal meaning and that is also meant. Therefore in terms of the relationship of a husband and wife, the wife is obligated to accepted the authority of her husband as we find in the Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 15:20): “Our Sages have commanded that the wife view her husband as a king and lord.” Aside from the language of this verse this idea of ruler ship can also be seen in the Sifre…that a woman does not have permission to speak before her husband. This is also possibly the source that Pesachim (108a) that a woman does not have to recline at the Pesach Seder in the presence of her husband. The reason being that he rules over her. She is exempt in the same way that a student is in the presence of his teacher. He cannot recline in the manner of freedom because of his fear and respect of his teacher. It is logical that this is the reason that a woman who does not fulfill the wishes of her husband is called a moredes (rebel). Since it is an obligation to accept him as king and lord [as stated in Rambam] therefore when she does the opposite - it as if she had rebelled against the kingdom. … “
Which adult would be happy with a life of complete bondage and servitude? Would you be?
Not sure what you mean.
ReplyDelete1 - The attitude of many of us towards non-Jews is very different than it was during the time of Chazal. We don't necessarily always see them as evil enemies or Ovdei Avoda Zara, whose lives aren't worth being mechallel shabbat for.
2 - I think it's pretty clear that we accept slavery (true slavery, not harsh work conditions) as being beyond the pale. Yet the Torah didn't just prohibit it the way it prohibited other ancient practices.
3 - Show me a Rosh Yeshiva and I'll show you someone who makes fun of democracy from time to time. Most of us disagree,
4 - So you think we'd accept a system of malkot, as described in the third perek in Makkot, for someone who eats pig?
Etc.
you are missing the point. We need to start from acknowledging that these sources not only exist but are consensus views of the mainstream. We need to acknowledge that modern society has a totally different view of women. We need to acknowledge that we accept the authority of Torah .The question is what to do in real life about these three facts? We have a case of cognitive dissonance. It can be dealt with by covering up information about the classic sources that people today find unacceptable or to claim they were meant for a different society or to point to a few contemporary sources which SEEM to be in disagreement with them
ReplyDeleteI have not missed the point, and I am not disagreeing with any of your three points. I do, however, disagree with the statement in the comment to which I was replying, that women are "treated wonderfully" in the "classic" view of marriage which is being discussed here.
ReplyDeleteJust as it is important to acknowledge asource sources, it is also important to acknowledge how Frum Jews - including most "Yeshivish" style Jews - actually live.
ReplyDeleteTwo examples out of dozens possible:
Yerusha is rarely carried out the pure Torah way. Wives usually inherit (frequently everything), and daughters are included (to varying degrees). Kesuba is not used as initially intended. All this is done Halachically of course, but doesn't change the fact that we do not live in the pure Talmudic system.
Girls learn far more than any technical source allows.
Moe and others below seem to deny this reality.
Separate point, I think it is totally fine to bring the sources you do, but you intentionally highlight the ones that go against modern sensibilities. I assume you do that as a counter to modern thought and to highlight sources people conveniently ignore. That's fine, but ends up that you are not portraying the full picture, and sometimes are misrepresenting even those you do (like sefer HaChinuch).
I have on these threads given some practical examples of how this works. When administered properly is is the recipe for everyone's happiness and well being and in fact sophisticated women enjoy such marriages. Marriage is certainly an adjustment and a learning curve in any case, but the proper direction allows for success.
ReplyDeleteProof, please.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that. Actually in such a case, things won't be smooth sailing no matter who is officially in charge. But this is the framework within which marriages should be worked on and perfected.
ReplyDeleteWe need to start by acknowledging that it's not just about women in Halacha. We need to be able to have a hashkafa that allows us to remain frum while recognizing that significant elements of our mesora are better 'fits' with the time in which they were legislated than with our era. Otherwise, you end up with band-aid-like solutions.
ReplyDeleteas I have repeatedly stated - produce sources that are different
ReplyDeleteIf there is no tzavah/will, then yerusha most certainly does go according to Halacha's order of precedence.
ReplyDeleteAnd Kesuba is also followed today as per Halacha. No idea where you got the idea otherwise.
I produced the Gemara in Gittin (regarding Olam Haba) -- you acknowledged in the comments that I was correct -- but it never made it to an actual post update -- remains buried in a comment leaving the wrong impression in the post. That's what you do -- you Highlight those sources -- that I COMPLETELY agree are legit and need to be mentioned -- but then when shown other equally important sources they remain buried or are tried (unconvincingly) to force to fit your initial post.
ReplyDeleteAnother example Tzelem Elokim -- you bring an Abarbanel first -- and never highlight the Sefer Ha-Chinuch -- a much more important source -- only bringing him in a different context (and there too writing a real weird, misleading post title).
Another example is divorce -- you bring down the Chinuch (and as above, even that misleading) but don't highlight the numerous sources that you MUST know -- Rashi in a few places, Gemara end of Gittin that highlight the relationship as one of ואשת בריתך and divorce as being a traitor to that sacred relationship.
Please bring proof of your assertion that "sophisticated women enjoy such marriages." I repeat my question. Can you honestly claim that you would enjoy a life of complete bondage and servitude that negates both your intelligence and free will?
ReplyDeletex
ReplyDeleteרבי, do you get actual flack from people asking you about these kind of posts? If yes, explain the problem to RDE.
Following your numbered points
ReplyDelete1. It isn't and never was a matter of how we see and relate to gentiles. The Torah teaches us that the value of human life is because of the soul, not the body. If we would not believe that then we would have to treat animals with the same respect as humans because they too have bodies, but we don't. We are taught that a Jew has a higher level of soul and therefore his life is more valuable. We find in Chazal plenty of discussions with goyim where we see that they were regarded and respected as people, but that doesn't effect the above explained distinction, which we accept only out of belief in The Torah. So nothing changed here.
2.The Torah teaches us that we may not treat the slave with any less dignity than we treat ourselves 'ki tov lo imach'. Also we are warned 'lo sirdeh bo beforech, lo saavod bo avodas aved', haanek taanik lo. If you are referring to eved Kenaani then refer back to point 1, that even a goy who isn't a slave has the lower status - lo maalin.
3. I don't understand your point here.
4. The issue of corporal punishment is still debated today, and many pundits are for it, for serious crimes. The prohibition of eating pig was always not something we understood because it's a 'chok'. We always had to accept it out of our belief in Hashem and The Torah, to know that eating pig is a very bad thing, worthy of corporal punishment.
I want to bring here another source that has not been mentioned here.
ReplyDeleteThere is a sefer Meshivas Nefesh (Mchon Yerushalaim 1998), by Rav Yochana Luria, from the times of the Rishonim (b. circa 1440).
Braishis 3:16:
When the female considers herself as important as the husband ... then she is "more bitter than death"... if she makes herself small and recognizes her place, that she is a woman, then "matza isha matza tov". Any woman who does not submit herself under her husband, and she is haughty - the children will not turn out well...
And see that submission is a praise and a virtue in a woman, for Dovid Hamelech a"h praised her "Hearken, daughter, and see, and lend your ear etc. for he is your master, and bow to him". Indeed the man is her master and she should submit herself under him...
And in this regard Sarah erred, due to her wealth, she did not submit herself to her husband... and for that her womb was sealed, lest the seed will not turn out right. But she did not grasp this, until Hashem enlightened her and taught her that she will no longer be called Sarai... and then she will be worthy to bear a proper son...
When they were created, male and female were to work the Garden and to guard it. The job of working was handed to Adam and the job of guarding to Chavah; any job that would come to them, would be the man's duty, and anything that requires guarding would be on her. But they would be equal in standing, like friends [partners]. For it is known that friends that are equal in standing, if they wish to to conduct themselves peacefully, each must submit himself to the other's opinion. But once Chava broke the understanding... she was punished measure for measure that the man should rule over the woman. And for this reason a man acquires a woman... and she does not acquire him, for it is known that every acquirer rules over his purchase. So it is in divorce "He shall write to her etc.", and not that she writes to him...
It appears to me that Rivkah was not submissive totally to Yitzchak her husband, as is found that she came to push him to change his will forcibly regarding Esav. And although she intended for the sake of Heaven, nevertheless she should have first begged him regarding her son, and to inform him of the virtues of Yaakov over Esav. But because she came and stood up to him [apparently] she was not submissive to his will, a rasha came out of her...
I don't see any reason to change the roles and statues of men and women to be different than Klal Yisroel has had them for the past hundreds of years and longer.
ReplyDeletePosted before, but not sure if comment was accepted. So will keep short this time.
ReplyDeleteOlam Haba -- Gemara in Gittin.
Tzelem Elokim -- Sefer HaChinuch (on divorce)
Attitude towards Marriage & Divorce -- Gemara end of Gittin (divorce is being a traitor to your friend and soulmate).
All more equally (or more) important, equally or more mainstream view, than the ones you brought as a start to the various discussions.
Are you suggesting that because there is no one shining gadol in this generation that we are now stuck doing things the way they did them in different times and different places? That we should continue to beat our children and students because that's how it was always done? That we should avoid reporting to the government at all costs because it endangers the community? Etc.
ReplyDeleteThis view is incompatible with "Deracha darchei noam." It is also incompatible with a loving marriage/relationship, as control breeds resentment and hatred, rather than love. As was stated in the book "The First Year of Marriage" by Rabbi Abraham J. Twersky, M.D. "Controlling behavior is prevalent in many relationships, and is virtually always destructive. However, in a marriage, the attempt by one spouse to control the other can be absolutely devastating. Keep this principle in mind: Control breeds resentment not love. An otherwise loving relationship can be destroyed by control. No one likes to be controlled. . . Fear and love are incompatible." Rabbi/Dr. Twersky goes on to state, "Control can occur in either direction, but given the prevailing male dominance in our society, the husband is more frequently the controller."
ReplyDeletedarchei noam doesn't override any halacha. It isn't nice for a woman to be an aguna. darchei noam doesn't help.
ReplyDeleteyou are missing the point. the sources that you quote by and large were already mentioned in relationship to the topic. So what are you adding? You are simply repeating information that has been readily available. I never said that the Arbanel or the Netziv were the only sources. I translated the Chinuch and as well as the Igros Moshe. The topic was an is the clear secondary position of women - even to the degree where the question is raised regarding tzelem elokim and olam Habah.
ReplyDeleteYou are misrepresenting the nature of discussion here and then you complain according to your mistaken understanding. To repeat, the issue is the clear and consistent consensus of a secondary and subordinate role of women!
Not arguing to change halacha. But is this view actually halachas Moshe misinai? If not, there is plenty of reason to change it.
ReplyDeleteDo you also see no reason to change the parenting practices to be different than Klal Yisroel has had them for the past hundreds of years and longer? Because they are certainly changing, whether or not you personally see a reason.
ReplyDeleteWhy is your personal opinion of "derecha darchei noam" that for hundreds of years and longer our zeidas were no good and in violation of your definition of it? Klal Yisroel's zeidas from Moshe Rabbeinu through Chazal through your own zeida were control freaks?
ReplyDeleteI think this topic is sorely lacking in female viewpoints/input, as sources and commenters appear to be overwhelmingly male.
ReplyDeletewasn't aware there were female Rishonim and Achronim. What sources did I miss - Blu Greenberg?
ReplyDeleteParenting practices codified in Jewish law (halacha) or not? If it isn't halacha, it can change.
ReplyDeleteHalacha mdrabbanan is chopped liver?
ReplyDeleteNo. And nowhere does anyone say that women should be subjected to bondage or that their intelligence or free will are negated. You are using exaggerated extreme terminology because the way it truly is, wouldn't justify your position. This is demagoguery.
ReplyDeleteIs the style of marriage being discussed here, not controlling?
ReplyDeleteExactly what I said about marriage practices.
ReplyDeleteWasn't aware that the commenters are all Rishonim and Achronim.
ReplyDelete, "as sources and commenters appear to be overwhelmingly male".
ReplyDeleteReread the description of marriage that was cited in my comment above - down to the earrings to denote her enslavement.
ReplyDeleteI repeat my question - would you honestly be happy if you were the female in the relationship depicted above?
Where is her free will if "all her deeds" are subject to the whims and desires of another?
ReplyDeleteThe marriage practices are Halacha.
ReplyDeleteWere Jewish husbands from before Chazal's time through Chazal through Shulchan Aruch's the through your grandfather's in Europe all inappropriately controlling of their wives (your grandmothers), in your opinion?
ReplyDeleteOr it can dealt with by hiding and ignoring the fact that halacha & torah ARE in fact being adapted to the value system of modern society, as the cases of polygamy, slave-trade, yerusha, voting rights, driving, rights to conclude contracts, divorce arrangements, etc. show.
ReplyDeleteHaredim are sometimes a bit slower to catch on, but their sense of justice also goes with the spirit of the time.
I suppose that there are in fact people finding satisfaction in bondage, but I suppose that they are more or less equally distributed among the genders.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that marriages were actually conducted as depicted above, as I did not live in those times. I know that my parents' and grandparents' marriages look/looked nothing like that. If the above description of marriage is actually implemented, then yes I think it is overly controlling.
ReplyDeleteThat's not clear to me.
ReplyDeletenot quite - lots of Rabbis let their wives go without kisui Rosh
ReplyDeleteWhere is our free will if we must obey The Torah?
ReplyDeleteThe question is not so much on a tradtional view of women , but how the present reality where not only has the structure of society changed from the Rashi quoted in the sources - she is subordinate to him because everything comes from him or how people have changed - see Rambam - the fear of him should be on her and she should do all her deeds according to what he says and he should be in her eyes as a ruler or king. , no longer a fear for authority , position or title etc . I believe that today the statement - women are subordinate to men has to reframed as men having the leadership role and modern leadership is more about concensus , collaborating and inspiring.A high profile psychologist on a radio program here in Israel said that women find it more difficult to marry because they seek partners on a higher level than themselves , where men see equal and below , so men have much more choice . We see that modern women do seek out a compassionate leader in a husband. The origin of the subordination is the curse , the question is in what direction are we moving. Here is an interesting talk by Miriam Kosman ( here are a woman's thoughts )http://sinai-indaba.co.za/talks/mans-world-maybe-womans/
ReplyDeletewhich rabbis?
ReplyDeleteWe are all avadim to Hashem, our creator, who is infinite and almighty. That is not the same as being an eved to another person, who is human and fallible. People are allowed to exercise intelligence and judgment in how best to fulfill Hashem's will. How can you compare that to an injunction to check your intelligence at the door and simply follow all the wishes and desires of another human being?
ReplyDeleteNot blaming anyone. Just an observation.
ReplyDeleteThat's your thinking in opposition to the Torah's thinking.
ReplyDeleteI was simply addressing your question regarding free will. We have free will to disobey Hashem too chas vesholom, but those of us who know what's best, choose to obey and accept his authority, but we still have the freedom to choose and that is our free will. Similarly, the fact that the prescription for a good marriage is for the man to be the decider and for the woman to follow, does not negate her free will. If she chooses not to obey, not to act like an isha kshaira, she can do that, but she will be considered to be acting out. That's because Hashem created the world and the nature of everything, and has told us that good marriages consist of the man being the leader and the woman the follower. That being said, the woman's intelligence should certainly not be negated. She should present her thoughts. And if the husband unreasonably ignores her, that won't work well either and additionally by doing that he will be in violation of other laws of ethics in that case. But when we are discussing the framework of the actual marriage, the man is the leader. May he learn to practice that leadership correctly, as she should learn to act her role correctly. Marriage requires an adjustment in order to get it right, but first we must know what the order of things is meant to be and then work to build a good marriage within that framework.
ReplyDeleteI stand by my previous replies. Requiring a person to fulfill all the whims and desires of another person, with no option to decide for him/herself negates that person's intelligence and free will.
ReplyDeleteDo slaves get to exercise free will?
First of all, just because something's in the literature doesn't mean you have to mention it. Are you going to next discuss the morality of genocide given God's approval of such when it comes to idol worshippers in Israel, Amalek, etc?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, there is an element of common sense that is missing, the famous fifth part of Shulchan Aruch. Yes, there may be plenty of literature suggesting women are essentially around to be our (men's) slaves. Common sense would tell you that in a modern, literate society, this will lead to an immediate dumbing down of the Jewish population because the women with brains will look at this and decide they can find happiness somewhere else.
You have previously brought poskim who thought women shouldn't be let out of the house or to have any independent lives. Are we seriously thinking that an attempt to enforce such a view would, outside of dysfunction cults like Lev Tahor, be met with a serious acceptance?
Seriously, we don't entertain selling our minor daughters into marriage anymore and that's as much Torah as anything else in this thread. We don't own slaves. We even say "Good morning" with a smile and hold the door open for non-Jews despite some saying that this is a prohibition of Lo Techanem.
In short, while you have been quite erudite and comprehensive, your position is unlikely to have any place outside limited cloistered groups.
Regarding control in marriages: I repeat my quote from "The First Year of Marriage" by Rabbi Abraham J. Twersky, M.D. "Controlling behavior is prevalent in many relationships, and is virtually always destructive. However, in a marriage, the attempt by one spouse to control the other can be absolutely devastating. Keep this principle in mind: Control breeds resentment not love. An otherwise loving relationship can be destroyed by control. No one likes to be controlled. . . Fear and love are incompatible."
ReplyDeleteI think we need to go back a few steps, so let me start from aleph. Hashem gave us The Torah. He said, I have separated you and uplifted you from the other nations, and I have given you the document with which I have created the world, to be the light of your life, and through that you will be the light of all other nations.
ReplyDeleteבטל רצונך מפני רצונו כדי שיבטל רצון אחרים מפני רצונך
Cancel your own ideas which aren't based in Torah and form your personality according the the views of The Torah.
He has then gone and instructed us of the way of life which he prescribes. He said that some of things may make sense to the secular mind and some may not, there are mishpatim and chukim. But in either case you must accept and follow all of my ways. He said that if you will simply accept that which makes to the simple mortal, you will be no more than any simple mortal, but if you accept the Divine understanding and modify your own self and bend your own self to accommodate it, then you will be uplifted above the level of a simple mortal.
Now he has instructed us, among other things, about how marriages should be. Some of these iinstructions seems to be difficult for people to understand. So what do we do? What we must do is try to understand it to the best of our ability and whether we understand or not we must follow it and live by it. So I am offering some sort of understanding, the way I have understood it. You seem to disagree. So I say to you the following. I am not the only one who is responsible to apply myself to The Torah. You are just as much. So go ahead, tell me how you understand these instructions of The Torah. And it will certainly require some bending on your part to form your own self according to The Torah rather than the other way around. But one thing is certain and that is that The Torah does indeed say that the woman is subordinate to her husband, whether you like it or not. Rabbi Eidenson has brought countless sources and there are many more. We can't bend The Torah. So go ahead, tell me how you understand it.
Nothing at all wrong with discussing anything in the literature. Including Amalek. Which, btw, is binding even today. We just don't know who Amalek is, so at can't act on it from a practical level for only that reason.
ReplyDeleteHow familiar are you with gedolim's domestic lives? Not too familiar?
ReplyDeleteEved Ivri?
ReplyDeleteAs part of your reconciliation of "traditional views" and modern reality, how about sharing what you see as "alternatives?"
ReplyDeleteNot the point. Look at it this way: we save both Jewish and non-Jewish lives on Shabbos. We do it for different reasons and the reason we save non-Jewish laws would be perceived as distasteful to many people. Imagine a well-written essay concluding with the line: In summary, we save non-Jews beause we don't want them to hate us. Sure it's true but do you want that out there as an excuse to create Jew-hatred?
ReplyDeleteBesides, there's a practical consideration that's been skipped over in this discussion. Any good monarchist will tell you that in a kingdom the subjects are property of the king. Can you provide me with any examples where the king acted like he could treat the people like plates and forks and thereby created a peaceful, enlightened society? Because I can name a few bloody revolutions that resulted from such actions.
My father is a talmid chacham. My grandfather was a gadol. I am actually familiar with several gedolim/roshei yeshiva and their families, and I do not know of any marriages that resemble the "traditional" marriage as described here.
ReplyDelete(Since you asked . . . ) My view is of a partnership of two, adult human beings in which both are valued, respected (in the commonly accepted meaning of the word), and accorded free will. In which decisions about personal or small matters are decided individually and decisions about large matters or those that affect the couple/family are decided jointly. Decisions will most often go the way of the person who has the most knowledge/expertise in that area. Since the husband is generally the one with greater Torah knowledge, decisions will often go his way - but not always, and not merely by the virtue of his Y chromosome. I believe that this is how most women see marriage and how most marriages are conducted in frum society today.
ReplyDeleteIn the past monarchy was the only model of government, but in our day we have seen that democracy works pretty well. . .
In reality, women are no longer subordinate, and encouraging this view is dangerous to all involved.
ReplyDeleteIf, on a shidduch date, a boy attempts to be controlling of the girl he is with, or if he even shows signs - "red flags" that he believes he is in charge, the girl is instructed to drop him like a hot potato 100% of the time.
who is encouraging?
ReplyDeleteWhen were the halachas repealed from the Torah?
ReplyDeleteIn the realm of marriage and also inheritance, there is much leeway for individual contracts and personal preferences. Most of halacha in this realm are just fallback-positions if nothing else was agreed. I suppose the only fixed halachic aspects of marriage are that the wife cannot be unfaithful (I suppose that after rabbi gershon this is valid for the husband too) and that intercourse has to occur for the marriage to be valid. Anything else is open for individual negotiation within the couple - preferably before the marriage is concluded...
ReplyDeleteExactly. So if the husband hadn't agreed otherwise, the normative default fallback positions of Jewish Law are in effect, as stated. Such as that she must do what he commands her to, all income she earns during the marriage belongs to him, she is not permitted to make purchases without his permission, only his sons inherit him, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe normative Jewish marriage at this time does not look anything like that, and by and large (with some possible exceptions) women are not entering marriage with that understanding or expectation.
ReplyDeleteLast time I checked slavery was outlawed in all civilized countries.
It's normative halacha.
ReplyDeleteWhy is someone as frum as you using the Internet?
ReplyDeleteNo one today does any of that, so it's not "normative." In fact, it's quite abnormal. Try it out for yourself if you don't believe me. What you are suggesting is in fact the norm in Muslim societies, but Jews of all stripes have much more respect for women than Muslims do, b'h.
ReplyDeleteYou are arguing against the Halacha.
ReplyDeleteTo give someone as unfrum as you some heartburn.
ReplyDeleteIt is the Halacha.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not old enough to get heartburn.
ReplyDeleteNonsense.
ReplyDeleteYou are arguing against reality.
I believe it was R' Aharon Lichtenstein who suggested that couples can simply agree among themselves to follow more contemporary egalitarian gender norms in their relationship, instead of the dominant/subordinate role traditionally found in Jewish sources. Perhaps it could be that, in effect, "human nature has changed" and this is necessary for many people. (Many rabbis have said we don't spank now because human nature has changed and it now just makes children more rebellious, so this can be seen as analogous.) In practice, we follow the advice of our contemporary rabbis, and in shalom bayis books even very charedi authors tend to advocate very egalitarian approaches -- for example, in Rabbi Shalom Arush's book on the subject he advocates letting wives control the family finances. They know from experience what works and we should follow their wisdom if we also find it works for us as well.
ReplyDelete