Monday, August 21, 2023

Rav Wosner: Women should not drive because of modesty and temperament which results in many accidents

Update: Just added the translation of the teshuva of Rav Binyamin Silber who permits driving

Because of the many misunderstandings of these teshuvos, I am providing the translations instead of the Hebrew

Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner (Shevet HaLevi 4:1.2): Question: Concerning the topic of tznius (modesty) regarding the fact that women learn and regularly drive cars. Answer: From experience I learned that this is something that is proper to clearly forbid. That is because learning to drive has already caused and continues to cause pritzus (immodesty) and this is diametrically opposite to the Jewish value that the honor of the Jewish woman (princess) is to remain inside (Tehillim 45:14). Similarly the driving itself is absolutely the opposite of the Jewish value that the honor of the Jewish woman (princess) is to remain inside (Tehilim 45:14).The woman who exposes herself through driving in the market and streets before the eyes of everyone is actively and passively causing others to sin. “And it is not the normal way of a woman to be riding” (Pesachim 3a-b). And even though the reality of a riding on an animal is not totally equivalent to our topic of driving a car – nevertheless it is not the normal way of a woman and the two are similar in many ways that it difficult to explain in writing.

My heart tells me that it is one of the reasons for major accidents which occur on the roads of Israel which claims many victims and has already kill many good and righteous people. This is combined with the sins that are done on the roads which create harmful angels which create a danger on the roads as I have explained elsewhere according to the discussion in Pesachim (112b) concerning the incident of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa and Abaye.
=========================================================
Pesachim (112b): ‘And do not go out alone at night’, for it was taught: One should not go out alone at night, i.e., on the nights of neither Wednesday nor Sabbaths, because Igrath the daughter of Mahalath,25 she and one hundred eighty thousand destroying angels go forth, and each has permission to wreak destruction independently. Originally they were about a day. On one occasion she met R. Hanina b. Dosa [and] said to him, ‘Had they not made an announcement concerning you in Heaven, "Take heed of Hanina and his learning," I would have put you in danger.’ ‘If I am of account in Heaven,’ replied he, ‘I order you never to pass through settled regions.’ ‘I beg you,’ she pleaded, ‘leave me a little room.’ So he left her the nights of Sabbaths and the nights of Wednesdays. On another occasion she met Abaye. Said she to him, ‘Had they not made an announcement about you in Heaven, "Take heed of Nahmani26 and his learning," I would have put you in danger.’ ‘If I am of account in Heaven,’ replied he, ‘I order you never to pass through settled regions.’ But we see that she does pass through? — I will tell you: Those are the narrow paths [which they frequent], whence their horses bolt and come [into civilized places] bringing them along.

Rav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner (Shevet HaLevi 7:11): I received your letter December 4, 1946 which raised the problem of traffic accidents which are increasing due to our sins at present and Heaven forfend that the issue should be passed over in silence but it is necessary to express concern. Furthermore the Rambam(Hilchos Ta’anis 1:3) says that if a person doesn’t cry out and but simply says that the misfortune happened by chance – this is the way of cruelty. Let me comment regard the issue of repentance and women drivers. I am also concerned with this issue – “The blood of your brother calls out to me from the ground.” In my humble opinion there are many causes for traffic accidents.
1. Sins that are committed on the roads as is known and by means of the cars themselves. They create mazikim (demons) which stand on the roads and make demands and occasional take innocent souls. And if it were given for the eye to see them no one could endure the demons (Berachos 6a ) 
2. Female drivers – either because they create spiritual stumbling blocks for themselves or for others or because as is well known that the nature of women is that they can’t control themselves in dangerous and stressful situations and they are involved many times in these accidents. 
3. Alternatively the nature of this nation is to be impulsive and they speed and travel without considering the physical dangers to themselves or the danger to others – as we have witnessed hundreds of times and which is different from the drivers in other countries as is known. 
4. And the last and most important point is that which you wrote in your letter. That drivers here don’t show kindness on the roads and they don’t take hitch hikers into their cars who are hoping for such kindness. And many times it is a clear that they wouldn't lose anything to show such kindness. And this is expressed in verses in Job 6:14-15): 14. To him who is afflicted love is due from his friend; or else he forsakes the fear of the Almighty.15. My brothers have dealt deceitfully like a brook, and like the water courses which disappear;
And I enjoyed what you wrote regarding the verses about Tamar. And it is a great mitzva to raise awareness of these things and I have already done so recently in my public speeches. Your good friend who wishes you well and hopes for G-d’s kindness.

==============================
Rabbi Benyamin Zilber (Az Nidberu 13:80): Question: Concerning a matter which was recently publicized – the claim that it is prohibited for women to drive car. I don’t understand their claims because it is possible for women to learn how to drive with female instructors in a manner that there is no aspect of immodesty. In particular I know that their are many well known major rosh yeshivos outside of Israel that their wives drive their cars. In fact rather than being something negative this is a major help to their husbands who are gedolei Torah that they don’t have to disturb themselves and take away from their precious time which is dedicated to spreading Torah. It also relieves them of the burden of household tasks in that the talmid chachom does not need to waste his time learning how to drive and then drive from place to place. Furthermore it is accepted outside of Israel by many bnei Torah who are G-d fearing chareidi Jews who learn in Kollel – that their wives do all the household tasks as well as earn a living in order that they might be able to learn Torah without distraction and wasted time. Their wives learn to drive in order to take away the many burdens to time wasters that if their husbands would be required to drive they would have to waste time from their studies many times for the sake of household chores and earning a living. And in particular I heard that one of the gedolei hador was asked by an avreich talmid chachom and G-d fearer whether it was better that he should learn to drive in order that his wife would not drive herself for the needs of making a living? The gadol responded that it would be better that his wife learned how to drive [in a manner that would preserve modesty with a woman teacher etc.] and that he should not learn because it would lead to being distracted with doing household chores and making a living and thus he would not be able to study Torah in a proper manner. Because I am hearing conflicting views on this matter and I would appreciate hearing your deep understanding of this matter. 

Answer:... I have received your letter about your reasonable concerns about announcements around Bnei Brak that it is prohibited for women to drive cars. I am also astonished about these notices. For example, even though Pesachim (3b) states that to mention women riding on donkeys is not refined speech because of the separation of their legs – nevertheless women did ride on donkeys and camels and it is likely that they themselves rode them themselves. The gemora was not bothered by the fact of women driving but rather just mentioned that riding the animals isn’t refined speech. So why should it be forbidden for them to drive in their cars when there isn’t an issue of separation of their legs? Driving a car has nothing to do with the issue of modesty. In fact the opposite is true since they are enclosed in a container which is called an automobile and they prevent men having the problem of walking behind a woman or walking between two women and also staring at them. (The problem is only if a woman driver is a rare thing and that fact causes men to stare at them).

Our Sages say that closing one’s eyes is a protective shield against seeing inappropriate sexually arousing things. In other words when your eyes are closed not only is there no problem of “the eye sees and the heart desires” but it also influences the level of lustful arousal. But what happens if someone would bring in the chareidi community something for which closing the eyes doesn’t help. That is because it is impossible to walk the streets with your eyes closed. Consequently there is a problem in a situation where women enhance their beauty with transparent nylon stockings and as in known - a women’s leg is ervah (sexually arousing) even below the knee. This is exacerbated now that women go with stylish shoes that make noise that can be heard at a distance. And even pious women who wear black stockings are not careful about this. Regarding this issue, the Ramchal (Chapter 11) has written, “In this manner it is prohibited because of sexually provocation all that which is licentious or close to it – and this applies to all the senses whether we are talking about movement or seeing or speech or hearing – even thoughts.”

I personally have been in the middle of the evening Shemone Esrai prayer on the second floor –while women are walking below. I can hear the clicking of their shoes and this interferes with my concentration on my prayers. So all of this is prevented when a woman encloses herself inside a car! And regarding the claim that by driving a car women will go out more often into the street – I don’t know what they are talking about. We see that the streets are packed and full of women – at least 90% are women. But if they are traveling in a car they don’t increase their presence on the streets. In fact the opposite is true. Because that which they need a half hour to do when they are walking they can do by car in a number of minutes.

And this that you mention a well known talmid chachom who prohibits women driving – you certainly are referring to my good friend the great gaon and posek of the community – Rav Shmuel Wosner. However that which has been publicized lately in his name, is that this prohibition is only meant as a chumra (pious extra strictness) and not as an actual halachic prohibition. And according to what I have written, it is not understandable what the chumra is in this matter? I already had the opportunity a number of years ago to talk with him about this matter and mention that this issue of women drivers has absolutely no relevance to the issue of modesty. And if people adopt a stringency because of modesty in a situation where it is inappropriate to be strict – it results in causing a leniency.

I don’t know the identity of the authors of these proclamations who have signed with various names. However it seems that that their main competence is to search and find some problem and then they build great structures and then go to rabbis and they paint a very black picture and obviously these rabbis nod their heads in sympathy and afterwards these people go and publicize prohibitions in the name of these rabbis. However these matters affect human dignity and well as human relations because when matters like this are publicized, they become immediately perceived as authoritative. Anyone who goes against the proclamation is criticized as being lenient and refusing to listen to the gedolim of the generation. Labeling someone like this can damage shidduchim.

To summarize, I personally do not see the slightest basis to be more concerned for women drivers than for men drivers. In fact the opposite is true because it is better to minimize the women from walking on the streets which requires men to close their eyes if they meet them. While it is likely that there are negative aspects of women drivers but those are things they share in common with the men drivers. The scholars ignore these issues in a man because they think it is necessary for men to drive because of earing a living or for health reasons. But the truth is that relevant on occasion for women also. It is obvious that a particular group of people that accepts a common authority can make takanos (decrees) according to their belief system and feelings. But this is only on the condition that these community decrees are not publicized outside of the group and in newspapers - so that those who do not obey these decrees will not be perceived as sinning. They will thus fulfill the prayer “Place in our hearts that everyone sees the good of our friends and not their faults.” Ultimately this is the halacha of Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 608), that it is necessary to know when to protest.

222 comments :

  1. The reality is that according to traffic accident statistics, males cause more accidents with injury or death than females. That's why I propose to ban males, especially males under 30 years of age from driving.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am happy that you went back to posting articles more suited to your target audience.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My summary of the second letter:

    In regards to the many recent car accidents, you correct that we cannot ignore them and we must seek to be "meorer", as the Rambam states that ignoring tragedies is cruelty.

    1) Sins that are committed along traveling routes creates mazikim ......

    2) Female drivers - possibly because they create spiritual stumbling blocks for themselves or for others; or possibly because their nature is that they become too emotional in dangerous and stressful situations, and they are involved in many of these accidents.

    3) Possibly the nature of this nation is to be very quick and not consider physical dangers to themselves and to others. It is different out of Eretz Yisroel.

    4) The last and harshest - that people don't do [enough] kindness with their cars, when so many people need help. Particularly when people are traveling along the same route anyway, where they lose almost nothing by taking along a passenger.

    In my opinion, it is a big mitvah to be meorer on this to the public. I have done so as well.

    Signed - your friend who seeks your good and who is awaiting Hashem's mercy

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does this mean the husband should pick up the kids from gan, drive them to their chuggim, go shopping at the Osher Ad across town, etc, etc, etc?

    The rav is going to have to work very hard to prove that women are worse drivers than men. Their nature makes them prone to accidents? The opposite, IMO, is true.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not sure I understand, are you posting this because you agree or do you disagree...?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very silly. Any bar daas knows that it is the aggressive driving of the males that causes the majority of the accidents. The only female demographic, in my opinion, that comes close, is the newly-minted teenage girl drivers and maybe the elderly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Before looking at sins and chesed and other esoteric causes, how about a modicum of derech eretz when driving and not driving like a pig as if there is no one else on the road who has to get somewhere. Let's start with things that make sense, please.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Does this mean ...

    The first thing to do is go to the Bnei Braq ghetto and see if and how they are managing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bemechilas kevodo I would think that a woman driving a car is less visible and distracting than a woman pedestrian.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Insurance rates are much cheaper for female drivers, and for married people (men and women.)

    I think they should institute tzniyut standards for cars. No half naked convertibles, no dangerous small cars, only (supposedly safer) volvos.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In certain cities, I noticed that drivers of certain minorities are worse drivers.
    In Israel, they have bad drivers and a lot of accidents, whatever the case, so it is not down to women per se.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not per mile drive. Men drive more so they have more accidents. But women have more accidents per mile driven.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So that's Rav Wosner opinion. Plenty of equal stature to him don't bring down such an issur. But he is chasidish and their women don't drive.

    I know a talmid muvhak of Rav Wosner who is a talmid chochom and his wife happily drives.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This was written many,many years ago. Unless you're properly aware of what was going on then, I think that the criticism is misplaced.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am posting this because it was said by a recognized world class posek and is relevant to the topic under discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rav Wosner isn't chasidish. In any event the point is that there are poskim on both sides of this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Where did you get this stat?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have no doubt that this psak will end up like Rav Kook's tz"l psak on women voting.

    ReplyDelete
  19. How is your emuna relevant to the discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Huh? Hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Jews already adhere to this psak of Rav Wosner. In the US, Israel and Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't see how that changes things. Today, as well as back then, the main problem on the road is inconsiderate drivers. The only thing that I would add is that today we have texting drivers as well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I saw a study somewhere a couple of years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/trans-canada-highway/women-have-more-accidents-per-mile/article1372682/

    ReplyDelete
  24. apparently men have less crashes per mile but when they do crash it's a lot worse

    ReplyDelete
  25. This does not seem to be true, but show your stats...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wow, that is really authoritative. Issue settled, then.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Women pedestrians are next. On the other side of the street.

    Maybe that's next. Different highways for men and women.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It was based on US traffic statistics from government data of highway accidents.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think that this post is very relevant to the discussion. From his statement about the likelihood of causing accidents it seems clear that Rav Wosner had an unrealistic perception of women, and it is therefore clear that due to the halachic positioning of women some or many rabbis came to perceive women in an unrealistic way. This indicates that they didn't correctly understand The Torah's perspective of women, and they most likely issued some erroneous rulings due to that. Therefore it is necessary to revisit the earlier sources, the reliability of which can't be questioned, and reinterpret them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I would like to propose a simple explanation of what Rav Wosner is asserting here. His assertion that women driving is the cause of more accidents is not a contradiction to the studies showing that men are more likely to be involved in auto accidents.

    Here goes: There are a number of factors that increase chances of accidents, but they mostly fall under one of two categories: negligence in driving (aggressive behavior, road rage, DUI, etc.) and unskilled driving. While men may account for the majority of accidents, that can be attributed to negligent, reckless driving. And it is no surprise that men are greater risk takers (driving without seatbelt, speeding, DUI, etc.) and more prone to road rage.

    But there is another factor to consider: driving skills. Without the benefit of hard evidence, my personal belief is that men are more skilled drivers than women. Men have better spatial awareness, can calculate time-distance better, and make better judgement calls under pressure (think: who is better at Tetris?).

    If we accept that men are more likely to be involved in accidents, it just means that negligence causes more accidents than lack of skill.

    What Rav Wosner is doing in this context is listing a number of factors that increase accidents: (1) women (=less skilled drivers) behind the wheel (2) reckless behavior (טבע העם הזה עמא פזיזא וממהרים ונוסעים בלי להתחשב בסכנת גופם עצמם וסכנת אחרים). Which means that if we would get women of the road and the men would control their reckless behavior, there would be fewer accidents.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I take statements like that seriously when they're backed up by some data.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Simply making a point: when am yisrael choses to ignore a psak, or go by a different psak, the concept that said psak is based upon cannot be considered to be our ideal.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It's a pity that a godel has to make such unqualified statements. He would do more for his greatness if he abstained from commenting about things in which he is not an expert. So probably he would have been well advised in consulting with a road safety expert before writing such a tshuvah.

    ReplyDelete
  34. when large amounts of Jews violate Shabbos - that means that Shabbos is not our ideal?!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Who needs facts when you have Daas Torah?

    ReplyDelete
  36. It is sad to read such unrealistic opinion and think on how many other opinions about women are based in a mix misinformation and wishful thinking.

    All my friends, ALL, who don't drive wish they could. They do what they're forced to do and overtime, they just accept the abnormal as the new normal and life goes on.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Quite the jump and the type of polemic often made (wrongly).

    You know, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any tshuvot allowing women to drive. Certainly I wouldn't be surprised if the MO world ignores with the subject. For a very, very simple reason: there is no need to allow the obvious.

    Rav Wosner tz"l is coming from a certain world view that simply isn't relevant to much of the Orthodox world, including much of the yeshiva world. That he gave a psak doesn't make that psak the default position.

    ReplyDelete
  38. i don't think that this one falls under the category of daas torah. IMO this a tshuva, netto. however, it is a tshuva (partially) based on bad or at least questionable statistics which really weakens its case (somewhat like Rav Moshe Feinstein's tz"l psak on smoking).

    ReplyDelete
  39. actually, GI, I take my last post back. a psak that explains traffic accidents based on lack of rachamim or lack of modesty is daas torah.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Actually, what R' Wosner is doing in this context is stating what is called a "boich sevara.".

    ReplyDelete
  41. There is something called 'gezeiro sh'ein hatzibur yecholim la'amod bo'.

    In chu'l, with much further distances, it is not practical in most cases for mothers not to drive.

    ReplyDelete
  42. even if there are such places it doesn't change what is considered correct or ideal

    you are grasping at straws and and are trying to ignore the facts

    ReplyDelete
  43. not necessarily. It could be that when he wrote the teshuva the facts were correct. Women have always been assumed to be worse drivers than men. there is a phrase "woman driver" which is used much more frequently than the term "man driver" - Whether in fact women were worse than men or caused more accidents when he wrote this teshuva is question of reality and that information has not been presented yet.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Correct" and "Ideal" are relative and depend on place and time. What is correct for one is not correct for the other. And yes, ideals change.

    I am not ignoring any facts and am not grasping at straws. No need for that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Even though there are times when a person must transgress Shabbos to save a life you can't say that observing Shabbos is therefore not an ideal or not correct.
    Even though there are times when you need to kill another human being - you can't say that the prohibition of killing is not an ideal or not correct

    etc etc

    ReplyDelete
  46. Actually, that is exactly what those Rishonim that hold 'hutrah' do hold. And others hold 'dechuyah'.

    But that is neither here not there. There is no issur per se in any event. And unless we are talking about shuk and other ervah, inyonei tzniyus does depend on time and place.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It is clear from the torah and gemoro that women rode on camels and donkeys. Why is driving a car any less tzonuah?

    ReplyDelete
  48. I am chasidish, and my wife doesn't drive. I go along with it because I don't believe it's worth it to take a stand against our social community, because the losses may outweigh the gains, but basically I see no reason why women should not be allowed to drive. Funny as it may seem, this actually causes some aspect of my situation to be less than traditional, in the sense that any driving kids to school which may be needed, or to shopping, needs to be done by me, the husband, and that isn't traditionally necessarily the role of the husband, but rather more the role of the wife. I hope this trend will change.

    ReplyDelete
  49. No, because if in their place, men would be doing those driving tasks, there would at the end of the day, be more accidents. Obviously, an increase in any type of driver will increase accidents, but that is not spoken to the point.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Daas Torah should not include such types of things. I don't see why a gadol baTorah would necessarily know more about accidents that a business man. I would think the opposite is more likely.

    ReplyDelete
  51. they didn't "drive" the camels and donkeys but travel as part of caravan which was organized and led by men

    ReplyDelete
  52. hutra doesn't make Shabbos observance relative.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Well, I am pretty confident that he did not conduct research with the Bureau of Statistics before writing the teshuva. He just asserts that due to their nature women are more likely to panic.

    ReplyDelete
  54. What does your chumash say about Rivkah? What did she fall off?

    A few days ago in daf hayomi we clearly had a discussion of a women riding on a donkey.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Even though there are times when a person must transgress Shabbos to
    save a life you can't say that observing Shabbos is therefore not an
    ideal or not correct"

    Yes I can. Hutra makes transgressing shabbos correct and an ideal. In fact there is no need to even ask a local non Jew to do the meolocho, there is no need to restrict the amount of melocho done to the minimum.

    ReplyDelete
  56. How did Rochel hide the terofim. What could she not get down from?

    It's ok, you are allowed to be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I remember reading an article many years ago from Dr. Yael Respler with shalom bayis tips. She strongly advised that women learn how to drive so that they should not be constant burdens on their spouses. We live in a busy world with large families and tuition committees that expect that tuition will be paid. Most often that means women work out of the house. Usually not in walking distance. And then try to fit in the necessary shopping and appointments. The teshuvah seems to have little relevance to America or even in the shtachim where transportation options are limited. As to women working under stress, they seem pretty successful in the operating room. And somewhat less violent.

    Female Doctors have a higher survival rate: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-survival-womendoctors-idUSKBN1481W2

    80% of violent crimes in U.S. were committed by males: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/persons-arrested/main

    ReplyDelete
  58. 1) Not every driving tasks that women perform are in place of a man performing them. In many instances, the alternative to driving themselves would be to take public transportation, walk, or to not take the trip. The availability of a private car increases amount of car trips taken. In the Israeli chareidi community, where there are few drivers, there's a lot more walking done, public transportation is overloaded, and people concentrate a number of errands into one to save themselves another trip.

    2) Even for those trips that the exclusive alternative to the female driver would be a male driver, Rav Wosner is still making an important calculation:
    Negligence is willful and can be avoided with discipline; poor driving skills is nature and is difficult, if not impossible, to correct. So if we are to appeal to the public to implement a number of changes that would make our roads safer, we should take less-skilled drivers (e. g. women) off the road, and, at the same time, exhort the skilled drivers to drive carefully - the combination of these two factors would greatly reduce accidents.

    You may be correct that if only the first factor is rectified and not the second one, it would actually increase accidents, but that would depend on my first point.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Actually what Yehoshua is doing in this context is demonstrating his inability to understand an idea expressed in five paragraphs.

    ReplyDelete
  60. you totally missed my point. Sitting on a camel is not the same thing as driving it. It could have been led by a man

    Never claimed to be infallible but you are barking up the wrong tree

    ReplyDelete
  61. Thanks, sweety. I understood it just fine. He gives a list of "reasons" why traffic accidents occur, and for one of them writes that women panic in pressure situations and cause accidents, so they shouldn't drive. And that, dear friend, is a boich sevara.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I agree with you. A israeli hassidish friend of mine moved temporarily to America, and I drove her around to know the city etc. I also took her to pick up some girls at Beit Yaakov by car, several times... When it was time for her to go to back to Israel, she wept, saying that she saw a high level of tziniut among the Beit Yaakov driving moms, and how home responsibilities are shared by a driving couple, making the man focus on his duties and learning and not wasting time "housechore driving"... she will never drive, but she wish she could. As many other non-driving friends of mine who had the courage to confide me their thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Shimon - - to go back to the beginning - you are trying to create a model of halacha which doesn't exist in the Orthodox world. It clearly exists in the Conservative world and maybe the Open Orthodox world.. The halachos present values and ideals which are not dependent upon local conditions. Just like not carrying or not cooking is an ideal - there are times when other factors prevent it implementation but it doesn't change the ideal. It seems that the ideal is for women to be subordinate.
    You noted that some people can't accept this - but that doesn't mean that the values are therefore irrelevant. They need to be implemented to the best degree possible and people should be educated to make them more acceptable. Halacha is not obligatory if and only if it is acceptable to the average secular person.

    The other alternative is to prove that the halachos have changed. But then you have to provide a mechanism. But to say that nobody will accept them is not a meaningful justification to ignore the halacha.

    So stop meandering all over the place trying to claim that I am wrong and that you have a new understanding of halacha which enables people to ignore Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim when it doesn't fit with contemporary secular society.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Nobody says that a women can't ride in a care - but that is not the discussion

    ReplyDelete
  65. Don't have a clue what you are talking about.

    When a women drives, what is NOT subordinate about that? Where is there any remez in rishonim or acharonim that a women cannot drive? Would your answer be different is she was running an errand for a husband?

    What about an unmarried women who doesn't have a husband to be subordinate too? Can she drive.

    Numerous hilchos tzniyus depend on time and place, for example any part of a leg that is not classified as shuk.

    ReplyDelete
  66. The gemoro in BM about a man hiring a donkey and a women riding it and vice versa has no caravans involved.

    ReplyDelete
  67. It looks like some sort of shtreimel on his head in the photo above.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I think that you are mistaken on that point, but it is a common illusion in the hareidi world.

    Halacha does evolve with time and values of the surroundings.

    How come that after around 1000 years in monogamous surroundings our gedoilim forbade polygamy? Why should they forbid what is allowed?

    How come that our average marriage age is not around 12, but around 20?

    How come that we feel that daughter should inherit along with sons? So even if we have to twist and tweek a little bit to make it happen, our default feeling is not "Sons inherit, daughters inherit nothing", as per halacha.

    How come we are suddenly allowed to mechalel shabbes to save a goy's life? Could this not be considered chilul shabbes, if you did it before the heter appeared?

    ReplyDelete
  69. please explain how the examples you gave are indications of evolving with time and values of the surroundings.
    when halacha is a mulitvariate processes then when elements change so does the psak. That doesn't mean that the halacha has changed or that values have changed. for you formulation to be correct, then the psak would change even though all the critical factors involved remained constant.

    Rav Herschel Schacter has a shiur on this topic on YU.com

    ReplyDelete
  70. I gather you live in a rather sheltered world. The shtreimel is not the exclusive hat of chassidim.

    The Gra wore a fur hat as did Rav Eliashiv. Rav Sternbuch wears a shtreimel, Yerushalmis wear a shtreimel etc etc etc

    ReplyDelete
  71. the simple question is whether a woman rode a donkey in the same sense as we drive a car. Did she have her own donkey to go shopping by herself at the mall or to go all over town by herself? or does it mean that she had a donkey to ride on in the company of a carvan or with her husband or father?

    I am not aware of anyone claiming that it is prohibited for a woman to ride in a car of bus

    ReplyDelete
  72. Shimon you have a long history of not understanding what I am talking about. This is nothing new

    A major issue is the idea of a woman having the means - car, plane, donkey etc - that she uses to go to places by herself.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Yes. I know that many hareidim lie to themselves in order to avoid cognitive dissonance between their belief that halacha does not change, will not change, cannot change and reality: halacha evolves.

    In essence, hareidim are not much different from conservative or reform jews, the only difference is that their pace of change is slower, in general so slow that change is not noticed, because it goes over several generations. However, you can see that change happened if you compare the state "before" and "after".

    Polygamy is the best example.

    ReplyDelete
  74. At least you're finally being honest that this is about control, rather than about tznius or driving ability.

    Are you advocating the Saudi system, where women are not allowed to drive or even leave the house without a male relative?

    ReplyDelete
  75. I don't have koach for this silliness. Why can't you just say that Rabbi Wosner's hypothesis is wrong and not borne out on real fact. That would be the truth, after all. Do you think this slights him? He didn't claim to know everything and we don't have to perpetuate such ridiculous ideas. I think the attempts to far-entfer his statement with dechukim which are not reasonable, slights him more than anything, and it takes away the credibility when we support his expertise in areas where he was truly an expert.

    ReplyDelete
  76. The example you just gave shows the weakness of your argument. The problem isn't her driving. The issue is what does she use the car for.


    This entire line is WADR completely disconnected with the very yeshiva world Rav Wosner claims to represent. A woman is told she's responsible for parnassa (and a high paying job at that) but then is told that professional training is forbidden. A women is responsible for getting the kids to and from places but is told not to drive. Furthermore, stay away from men but ride on crowded buses standing next to a man.

    Ideals that have no connection to reality end up in the dust bin of history.

    ReplyDelete
  77. So you are now saying the 'issur' has nothing to do with a car per se. It's about the women going to places on her own. The gemoro is full of anecdotes about women meeting tanoim and amoraim on their own and having convetsations with no mention of a husband in tow.
    -------- Original message --------

    ReplyDelete
  78. It is not my argument. We are interested in what Rav Wosner said

    this has nothing to do with dust bin of history. There are many women are operate under these guidelines. I simply presented a posek who ruled that driving is prohibited for women. Obviously it hasn't hit the dust bin of history yet and probably never will

    ReplyDelete
  79. Sky your obnoxious put downs do nothing to further the discussion. "Finally being honest" is an ad hominem attack which doesn't address the issue of understanding what Rav Wosner - one of the truly great poskim in recent years - says on the matter.

    To make it a personal agenda of putting me in my place - is not acceptable. Any further comments like that and I will simply delete the whole comment. I am simply presenting material and explaining it to the best of my knowledge. You want to say I misunderstood Rav Wosner - no problem. But this is not my psak and it is not my position that you are trying to demolish - it is Rav Wosner's

    ReplyDelete
  80. your hostility towards chareidim and your generalization about how they are no different than Reform and Conservative are not helpful in this discussion. Nor are they useful in understanding the issues because they are not accurate. Yes all Blacks are lazy, All white men are bigots, all goyim are anti-Semites, all liberals are destroying the country etc etc etc. Please check your steorotypes at the door and bigotry at the door.

    ReplyDelete
  81. now you're being disingenuous. you're presenting this an ideal and for no other reason than because a chareidi posek wrote it.

    further, i don't know how many is "many". more than 10? given the poverty of the chareidi world, saying a (chareidi) woman shouldn't have her own car is like my saying "i'm not planning on buying a vacation home in the swiss alps". look at those families who actually have the income to allow a second car and refrain from doing so because of this psak. that is the only number relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  82. please cut out the ad hominem. I am not being disingenous or intellectual dishonest or etc etc. Stick to the ISSUE and that issue is not me or your like or dislike of me. If a major reason for your commenting here is simply to try and show that I am X Y or Z - I am asking you to go find a different target for your recreational needs.

    you are mistaken. An ideal because it is from a recognized posek. Is it one that you and I need to accept? Clearly not because their are otherlegtimate views

    your concern with a second car is irrelevant. Many times the wife could use the car to go shopping etc if she could drive. Yes it is relevant for way more than 10 people.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I am not hostile against hareidim. I just name facts as I see them. You yourself drew the attention to cognitive dissonances between values represented in the torah and imposed by earlier posskim and our sensitivities now.

    I know that the hareidi sensitivity AND PRACTICE evolves, just at a slower pace than reform or conservative. In general, major changes take one generation or two, so they are so gradual that many people, including you, apparently, do not notice change at all.

    And it does not only evolve towards more liberalism, the banning of polygamy in the context of a monogamous society is the best example.

    By the way: I suppose that many restrictions imposed by rishonim on divorce are also due to a context where divorce was forbidden in neighbouring (catholic) society.

    ReplyDelete
  84. It is not helpful to pull explanations out of thin air. Your "naming facts as I see them" - is just another name for voicing your feelings about a subject.

    If you want a meaningful discussion rather than catharsis - it would be helpful to provide supporting evidence. It would be useful if you wrote in in a less hostile fashion

    It would also be helpful if you voiced your proposals as questions rather than assertions.

    Bottom line - it would be helpful if you moderated your tone. Many of your suggestions would be go starting points for discussions if they were questions rather than assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I did. Twice. It's all about driving.

    "A major issue is the idea of a woman having the means - car, plane, donkey etc - that she uses to go to places by herself."

    Bottom line, there is no source in Rishonim or Acharonim to support that statement in a place where it is not the custom for women to generally stay in doors. You made that up.

    The chareidi areas of EY are full of women going around by themselves. As in chu'l.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "A major issue is the idea of a woman having the means - car, plane, donkey etc - that she uses to go to places by herself."

    Is denying a person the ability to move about freely, not controlling?

    Again, are you advocating the Saudi system, in which women are not allowed to drive or even leave the house without a male relative?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Why is it only OK to stereotype women?

    ReplyDelete
  88. I repeat - this is a scholarly examination of mainstream Orthodox Jewish views. This is not the platform to ventilate about things you don't like about Judaism. It is not a platform for people who object to my presentation of facts. It is not a place to complain that G-d got it wrong and that you know better.

    If you think my presentation of these views are incorrect - I welcome criticism. If you don't like that Judaism has these views - go find another place to complain. If you feel strongly that I need to be more politically correct - tough!

    ReplyDelete
  89. You need to get something straight now. I am not advocating a particular position about women. I am presenting views from established main stream Jewish sources. I am not reconstructing Judaism, I am not Reforming it and I am not proselytizing. If a scholarly examination of sources If this is not what you are interested in - so go find another way to spend your time.

    TO REPEAT
    I AM NOT ADVOCATING A PARTICULAR VIEW ABOUT WOMEN

    ReplyDelete
  90. That polygamy was allowed until Rabbi Gershon forbade it, in the context of a monogamous culture in the surroundings IS a fact. Do you dispute it?

    ReplyDelete
  91. are you serious. With your vast knowledge of Yiddishkeit you have never come across the idea that women should ideally remain indoors!? The fact that in practise there are other considerations doesn't change the value nor does it invalidate the basis of Rav Wosner's teshuvah?

    ReplyDelete
  92. No It is what it says it is. Tznius and driving ability are factors

    I am not advocating anything - STOP SHOOTING THE MESSENGER! Keep you eye on the ball - which is scholarly discussion of Judaism's view of women. It is not about whether you like it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I am not objecting to a scholarly examination of anything, but it seems intellectually dishonest to object to stereotypes about Blacks, white men, goyim, liberals, and chareidim, etc. while allowing stereotypes about women.

    ReplyDelete
  94. No - but that was not my point which you conveniently are ignoring.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Nope, never and I even checked otzar hachochmo.

    The only time and place when women should ideally remain indoors is when that is the local custom in that particular place and time. Which is not the case to day in nearly every place Jewish women live.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Both Shulchan Aruch and Rambam rule l'halacha that women should mostly stay indoors and not go outside too much.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Shulchan Aruch and Rambam and the Gemorah and numerous other meforshim rule l'halacha that women should not go outside the home much and should be indoors.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Polygamy was only forbidden for Ashkenazim. And even then it was after the time of Chazal. For non-Ashkenazim Other polygamy is halachicly permitted today. You can find Teimanim with multiple wives.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I wish I could eat cheeseburgers. But I don't. I'm forced not to.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Fascinating post. Thanks for the read. Very interesting to hear the opposite view of the psak of most Rabbonin, which obviously is that men should abstain from driving.

    Driving is clear bitul Torah, and men are easily distracted by unclean thoughts, resulting in many accidents. Many Rabbonim even note the male's propensity to "compete," "show off," and "engage in risky behavior," which has culminated in an epidemic of drag racing, speeding, and many other types of dangerous driving. All of this has lead to countless terrible accidents and deaths, r'l.

    IMHO, no one should drive.

    ReplyDelete
  101. So where is your hangup? Are you denying that perceptions and values held by hareidim evolve over time and depend somewhat on the surrounding culture and laws of the lands where they are living?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Now I see why there is so much interest in self-driving cars.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Why are you so aggressive in your response to sky?

    ReplyDelete
  104. So why should be women allowed to board a public bus, but not to drive her car? The result is the same: it allows her to go places.
    And perhaps chachamim would be well advised to cut her legs too, because two legs are enough to take people place, it just takes more time...

    ReplyDelete
  105. But your examination is not scholarly.

    ReplyDelete
  106. You also have a tendency to put down commentators who do not agree with you, in a very haughty and impolite manner. Just want to draw your attention to it, in case you did not notice. Claiming that sky is obnoxious is one example.

    ReplyDelete
  107. How do you want to have a polite and "scholarly" discussion if you yourself do not adhere to the rules of polite and scholarly discussions?

    ReplyDelete
  108. So in fact we have to suppose that this t'shuva by rav Wosner does not meet the standards of scholarly discussion, since it is based on "intuitions" that are in no way backed up by facts...

    ReplyDelete
  109. you clearly don't understand what he wrote

    ReplyDelete
  110. Does this t'shuva meet your standards of "scholarly discussion"?
    It is quite obvious that it is based on assumptions that are contradicted by facts.
    In my view, the central aspect of "scholarly" discussions is that they have to rely on facts...

    ReplyDelete
  111. What he wrote is rather pityful, because he is looking for some esoteric explanations for traffic accidents, rather than tackling the main problem: reckless driving and insufficient road security, which is quite endemic in Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  112. No other response than ad hominem arguments? Where is your scholarly discussion now?

    ReplyDelete
  113. I would hesitate to refer to these as halachic teshuvos at all. More like his guidance/opinion on a contemporary issue.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Not denying Jewish Literature. Just noting that it stereotypes women.

    ReplyDelete
  115. In a place where that is the custom. Look at the Rambam in context.

    ReplyDelete
  116. But driving is derech hagoyim. For men, too.

    ReplyDelete
  117. There is a large shailah on motor homes.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Halacha is halacha, a misinformed rabbi making unrealistic statements is a misinformed rabbi making unrealistic statements. Don't mix both as you don't mix meat and cheese.

    ReplyDelete
  119. The Shulchan Aruch (and Rambam) rule like that without qualification.

    ReplyDelete
  120. stereotypes are commonly used by legal systems. This issue is whether the stereotype is correct

    ReplyDelete
  121. your comment is rather pitiful. you really have not shown full understanding what he actually wrote in the teshuva

    ReplyDelete
  122. you seem to miss the obvious. Torah and its literature is the object that is being treated in a scholarly fashion.
    Is gravity scholarly? Are you scholarly?

    your clear contempt for the writings of a gadol because it doesn't agree with your understanding of the Torah and the world is very unhelpful and in no way can be deemed scholarship. It is simply your subjective judgment.

    A scholarly discussion focuses on a topic or issue and tries to understand it fully.

    ReplyDelete
  123. you obviously don't understand what a teshuva is. No it doesn't not have be a comprehensive review of all relevant material . No the existence of questionable facts does not necessarily invalidate a teshuva. The teshuva is based on a number of different factors - each of which can independently lead to the conclusion he reaches. Rejecting one of those factors does not disqualify the conclusion

    ReplyDelete
  124. Esty did you read the teshuva or are you judging it purely on the basis of some of the comments?

    ReplyDelete
  125. I don't speak Hebrew, can't read it.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I can't read Hebrew, Rabbi.

    ReplyDelete
  127. I think that real scholarly discussion is impossible if you posit as an axiom that everything a Gadol says is automatically true.

    Rav Wosner is clearly mistaken in his perception that women driving pose a greater danger than men driving (in reality, as confirmed by statistics around the world, women driving pose less of a threat than men driving). If you have to accept Rav Wosners view as true, just because he is the gadol, you will never approach truth or true scholarship, at best you will advance in ideologic thinking and propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  128. With all due respect, if one wants to take a role in discussions relating to halacha and be taken seriously, it is essential to be familiar with the primary sources.

    ReplyDelete
  129. So we have conflicting ideals (which is fine). In the vast majority of the Orthodox world women drive , many have their own car, and the rabbinic leaders of these people see no problem what so ever. God forbid anyone should have the chutzpah to say these people are being b'diavad.

    I see no reason to accept the proposition that Rav Wosner's ideal is better than the alternative (especially since the psak is based on questionable science and questionable Torah assumptions).

    ReplyDelete
  130. Also, the "temperament which results in many accidents" can not be used as a cause for forbidding women to drive. If that's so, we should also remove all seniors from the driveways, drivers with physical disabilities and (sorry, it will sound racist but that's how I see it) many Asian drivers, men and women, young and old, because they are in general extremely hesitant behind the wheel, to the point that it gets on the nerves of anyone driving close to them. In summary, anyone who does not drive as confident as a race car driver should be removed from the streets.

    ReplyDelete
  131. But if they must go shopping by some fluke or emergency, should they rather walk publicly on the streets, drive, take a car service driven by a man, get their husbands to take of work or kollel to drive them, or use a scooter? Please list in order of priority from best to worst. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  132. so if he is not your posek in this matter what is the problem? And his basis is not questionable Torah assumptions

    ReplyDelete
  133. I didn't say it is automatically true. But it automatically needs to be considered seriously and with respect. His primary basis is theology not statistics

    ReplyDelete
  134. Order from Amazon and FreshDirect to deliver direct to the home, no shopping visits necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Surely it is precisely teshuvos like this that show that this Rabbi does not live in reality and therefore his halachic opinions are worthless.
    How can someone who writes such ignorant things be relied on to give halachic rulings? I'm sure he knows a lot of torah and he may even be a genius, but he is also ignorant about reality.

    A little like the rabbonim at the recent gathering against beis yaacov girls studying in haredi colleges.

    As a side issue, if, as princesses, they need to remain inside, how can rabbonim today allow women to work? Surely based on this ruling men need to leave yeshivos and get a job so that their wives can stay at home.

    ReplyDelete
  136. That's why I said it's a fluke. I was just just asking a hypothetical question. But please answer it anyway because I know some crazy unresonable people who claim that the women have to leave the house sometimes, so what should the gedoilim tell them in terms of the order of priorities.

    ReplyDelete
  137. That's why we have pirushim. The Rambam is clearly talking about a place where they have the custom like the rest of that paragraph.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Did you know this is a blog and not a yeshiva? Since when only Hebrew speakers can talk in discussions?

    ReplyDelete
  139. First of all, thank you Rabbi for translating it.

    Even reading it in English, I still do not find a good reason to justify the prohibition in some communities of women driving a car.

    1. learning to drive and immodesty: ask for a female teacher

    2. "Jewish woman (princess) is to remain inside": in the past, when Jews lived in european guetos and moroccan mellas that was just natural behavior. Once the walls of the guetos and the mellas came down, kids started to learn in other neighborhoods, supermakets were available far away and women the concept of "remain inside" changed.

    3. "before the eyes of everyone is actively and passively causing others to sin" - although this is related to tziniut, doesn't a bad male driver also cause others to sin????? Regarding the tziniut, teach the ladies to drive and keep it at the same time.

    4. "Female drivers – either because they create spiritual stumbling blocks for themselves or for others or because as is well known that the nature of women is that they can’t control themselves in dangerous and stressful situations and they are involved many times in these accidents. " --- the nature of women is to be more cautious than men for her own safety, in every aspect of her life, and that's why women are less involved in car accidents then men are. Now... what about a woman who can control herself better than a man in "dangerous and stressful" situations, is she allowed? What about a man who changes his personality and becomes an animal behind the wheels, is he allowed to drive?

    5. "Alternatively the nature of this nation" ---- it's not alternatively, it's the real deal, the nature of israeli drivers is out of this world. It's just not normal what happens in israeli streets. It's not because of women, it's just that israelis are terrible drivers, that's all.

    6. "...it is a clear that they wouldn't lose anything to show such kindness" --- with the rise of terrorist attacks in Israel, a person who gives a ride (or asks for one) can lose his/her own life.

    I respect those who follow this opinion, but it does not make the minimum sense for those who disagree with it.

    Hassidim are in general terrible drivers... and it has nothing to do with women, it's just that they don't care about the law.

    ReplyDelete
  140. A tshuva which includes a claim about knowing the spiritual reasons behind traffic accidents (and based on that makes a ruling about how others should live their lives) is indeed questionable Torah.

    Actually I need to revise something I wrote earlier. This psak doesn't represent an ideal to me. Given the issues I have with it, its disconnect with the dati world (including much of, if not most of the chareidi world), the lack of any historical proof showing some sort of continuity with the past, the psak is about a lifestyle, but not a Torah ideal. It is no more of an ideal than not learning on Christmas, going to the mikva every day, not eating matzoh, and a thousand other esoteric practices that have come and gone.

    ReplyDelete
  141. I know that it is a blog and not a yeshiva. And when the discussion is about many of the other issues addressed on this blog, one who does not know any Hebrew is no worse off. But did you know that there is an actual text, written in Hebrew, being discussed here? How can someone who by their own admission cannot read the text purport to have an opinion about what it says?

    ReplyDelete
  142. Agreed Shimon. A chayal in zahal is doing the ideal serving on Shabbat and protecting Am Yisrael. Someone not in Zahal is doing the ideal in keeping Shabbat. Two situations, two ideals. Neither is a b'diavad.

    ReplyDelete
  143. I think it is very questionable to assume that conclusions based on wrong assumptions are correct. So in my view, a t'shuva based on wrong assumptions invalidates itself and has to be re-examined in the light of the correct facts.
    Except if you had a conclusion you wanted to arrive to from the beginning ("women should not be allowed to drive") and just randomly try to find arguments to back up your foregone conclusion. In this case the wrong assumptions are just a propagandistic mistake and can be replaced by other, more factual arguments. However, I do not think that this kind of reasoning is intellectually honest.

    ReplyDelete
  144. you are ignoring that the validity of the teshuva clearly is not dependent on whether women are worse drivers. You haven't shown that in 1946 in Israel that women were in fact worse drivers

    In sum, your categorization of the nature of the teshuva is wrong and your conclusion is wrong

    ReplyDelete
  145. The rest of the paragraph is not qualified to a place with customs. Rambam gives the Halacha over universally. As does the S"A.

    ReplyDelete
  146. For future reference, https://translate.google.com/ will give a rough translation. It may be necessary to copy the Hebrew into a document if it is too large and select that that option to translate https://translate.google.com/?tr=f&hl=en

    ReplyDelete
  147. If the fact whether women are worse drivers or not is irrelevant to the tshuva, then it is a mistake, from a scholarly point of view, to mention it at all.
    Since you know all about scholarly debates, you should be aware of that.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Now that you brought the tshuva from Rabi Zilber, wgich seems to make more sense to many people, I expect some commentators to be saying 'Wow, a true gadol!', and that comment will make me nervous. It's just simple common sense. That does not yet a gadol make. The fact is that as far as all of the rabbonim that I know, we sadly have no gedoilim today.

    ReplyDelete
  149. It's hard to take you seriously when you condemn an entire group of people because of your racist misconceptions about "Hassidim".

    ReplyDelete
  150. again you are missing the poin again.. What a gadol says is important to study. It doesn't mean that the tehusva is a work of scholarship. The fact that you can find problems with various statements doesn't mean that what he says is not authoritative.

    ReplyDelete
  151. I think it is problematic to focus on author, rather than content. To find truth, it is important to focus on content, regardless of the author.

    ReplyDelete
  152. There are authorities based on footnotes and there are authorities based on who they are. That is not a chidush.

    ReplyDelete
  153. In a self driving car, will a woman be permitted to sit in the front?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Greatest Anav: The only answer to your assertion is what Golda Meir said once:

    When Golda Meir was asked to place a curfew on women to help end a series of rapes, Meir replied by stating, “But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home.”

    ReplyDelete
  155. Who is saying something has no impact on the truth of the statement. Whether a statement is true or not is an intrinsic property of the statement, independently of the author.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Berel,

    DT is saying that Rav Wosner's statement "Women shouldn't drive" stands on its own, regardless of statistics, lack of historical proofs, dependency on the rav's judging the spiritual reality of the world, etc.

    I would respond by saying that quoting a psak about driving from 1946 is about as relevant as quoting a psak on smoking from then.

    ReplyDelete
  157. The statement of a prominent Rav can be authoritative even if the arguments he uses to justify his psak are not true.

    Note the Rav Yosef Karo states that the authority of the Talmud is because it was accepted. The authority of the Shulchan Aruch is because it was accepted.
    Your statements on the other hand are only relevant if they are true.
    This is rather elementary and it is strange you have such a hard time understanding it.

    ReplyDelete
  158. It can also taint the person's authority if he relies on arguments that are not true.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Well of course there might be diehard followers who might accept a statement as true just because they view the person who makes it as an authority.
    That's why we have so many strange cults and belief systems in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  160. No it is not just cults
    You keep denying reality

    ReplyDelete
  161. It is still accepted
    Please learn a little about rabbinic authority

    ReplyDelete
  162. Of course, not just cults. A quite widespread phenomenon, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  163. This is not a dochak, and I'm not bending over backwards to far-entfer what he wrote. I have no problem saying he was wrong if he was, but in this case he hasn't.
    If you comprehended what I wrote (which I question based on your lack of koach for "this silliness"), I am not straining the basic, original meaning of his words to mean something else. I am keeping his thesis intact, while dissecting the statistical fact mentioned here that women are involved in less accidents than men. This statistic takes only the bottom line into account, not the factors that contribute to them. Rav Wosner makes an assumption, which, while possibly not having the benefit of being statistically tested, is common sense to many people. Many people, men and women would rather have a male driver in situations that require better driving skill, such as in inclement weather. It is common sense to many people that men act better under pressure, which can turn an accident into a "near-miss". This basic idea, of men being better skilled at driving, has not been contradicted by the statistics of accidents, because poor skills are not the only contributing factor in car accidents.
    So until proven otherwise, there's no reason to question his assertion. (My wife drives, by the way)

    ReplyDelete
  164. Why was she wrong?
    Because if we could identify all rapists and put a curfew on them, that would we the best solution. But since we don't have the benefit of doing that, and we are just breaking it down to gender, a curfew on women makes more sense.
    Every women is a target for a rapist, while only a handful of men are rapists.
    הנוגע לענינינו: The only way we can remove the danger of women's poor skills is by banning them from driving. Removing the danger of men's aggressive and risk-taking behavior can be accomplished in other ways than banning male driving, such as better education and increasing policing and penalties.
    Besides, I think banning male driving would be impractical for the economy. Do you want exclusively female truckers driving eighteen-wheelers across the Great Plains? Do you want exclusively female ambulance drivers? Garbage collectors? Snow plows?

    ReplyDelete
  165. She said "in general" and if you disagree, I take it that you do not live or drive in Monsey.
    Please pay us a visit, park your car on Roman Blvd, Ralph, or Rita, count the percentage of cars that are BOTH speeding and past the median, and then let us know if "in general" sounds accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  166. He gives 4 causes for accidents. His point is that if we remedy these, we would have fewer accidents. So he is saying in cause #2 that if women wouldn't drive than we would have fewer accidents. So there are 2 possible explanations to his remedy based on cause #2. He either means 1- to replace them with men or 2- to simply not have them drive and no one would drive those drivings instead, assuming that those are avoidable drivings. If he means 1, that is statistically untrue. If he means 2 then he shouldn't suggest minimizing women drivers but rather he should suggest avoiding these drivings altogether if those driving can be avoided, and actually to avoid male drivings would accomplish more to reduce accidents, so why did he mention women. So tiyuvta tiyuvta. But haemess yore darko that he asserted that women cause more accidents then do men and only with that can his words be undertood. And that assertion if false. And he was still a great man.

    ReplyDelete
  167. כל דור ובפוסקים שלו

    ReplyDelete
  168. Never blame the victims.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Hassidim are IN GENERAL terrible drivers, it's not racism, it's just reality. Doubt it? Visit a hasidic neighborhood. Of course there are some who respect the law of the country, but they're by far a rare minority. Up to this day, I do not know if they do that because they don't care or because they can't read the signs while driving. For a huge number of them, all laws are just ignored. Once I was driving to Quebec with my husband, coincidentally the same day of the passing of the rebbe of Tosh, coincidentally at the same time when his american followers were coming for the levayah... You can not even imagine what I saw and suffered because of them.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Since this topic is related to women... and since I am a woman... I can not remain silent, being it translated or not. If you're not happy about it, stop reading my words.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Esty he is not saying you should remain silent. Just that your comments should be informed by what the material actually says rather than what someone thinks it says. That applies both to male and female commenters

    ReplyDelete
  172. I recall fatality because of "bad behavior" at rav vozner z"L's levayah in BB.

    Has anything been done about such behavior? Education campaign? Other?

    ReplyDelete
  173. However no one accepts statement in the Talmud which are known to be completely untrue (like out of date medical advice). Similarly, if the SA writes something which has no basis, people call him out on it (like eating fish and milk together).

    ReplyDelete
  174. People don't eat fish and milk together. Your rejection of it didn't translate into worldwide Jewry.

    ReplyDelete
  175. "Ha'emess yoreh darko that he asserted that women cause more accidents then do men." He never asserted that. He could not have asserted that, because he never tallied all accidents or researched the ratio of male accidents vs. female accidents to be able to assert that women cause more accidents.

    What he did assert was that women's innate nature makes them more prone to causing an accident, and that has not been contradicted by the statistics.

    Imagine Mr. A making the argument that teenagers should be banned from driving based on the fact that they are too irresponsible, and Mr. B would counter that in fact more accidents are caused by adults than by teenagers. This statistic does not contradict A's assertion. Irresponsibility in teenagers should be a cause for more accidents, and A can still argue that, if you would break down accidents by their causes, rather than by the age of the driver, you would see that teenage driving is a cause of accidents. (I'm not confirming A's assertion, just defending his position.)

    The same is here. Women's nature is a contributing factor in the causes of accidents. The fact that the numbers don't reflect that is only because the statisticians are not analyzing causes, only tallying accidents by gender. The fact that men's nature also causes accidents is a separate issue, which needs to be dealt with accordingly.

    What did he mean, replace them with male drivers, or that female drivings are avoidable?
    I don't think he meant one specifically. He meant that we should ban all women, which would accomplish both. No. 2 would certainly reduce accidents, and is much more effective than telling people to avoid driving unnecessarily because it has no clear definition or guidelines. No. 1 is also an accomplishment, if coupled by remedying cause 3, which is following basic rules of driving.

    "His point is that if we remedy these, we would have fewer accidents."
    Correct, but the question is: will remedying each of these causes individually contribute to a reduction in accidents, or will some of them only be effective collectively. You assume that remedying each one individually would reduce accidents. I'm suggesting that Cause 2 would need to be remedied coupled by Cause 3.

    ReplyDelete
  176. I am sorry, but I don't understand. You feel a requirement to offer comments on any posts concerning women even if you don't know what the posts are about? That seems odd to me.

    ReplyDelete
  177. To your breakdown of male vs female driving- assuming your classification is correct and that women do not have the skills that men do in regards to driving, this is certainly something that can be learned, like most skills, with plenty of practice. It would seems then more appropriate to ban men driving than women since skills can be learned, but road rage and other dangerous male driving behavior can only be changed by changing their midda of Kaas which is much more difficult to work on than some hours spent practicing on safe quiet streets.
    Your opinion in regards to the practicalities of banning men is irrelevant since R Wosner is not asking for official government laws to be changed to outlaw women driving but only for religious women to not drive. How many religious men do you know who drive eighteen wheelers cross country that such a ban would affect? There are not many
    This is not really relevant to this discussion, but your comment with regard to rapist is faulty logic as well. You cannot look at potential victims but only actual rapists, that is not a valid way to assess. If you are looking at potential victims, you must look at potential perpetrators to compare. Since this would include all men golda Meir's response was not wrong. (Also in looking at potential victims, there have been many instances involving male victims as well. Since male victims are more common than female perpetrators, by this logic it would make more sense then to institute a curfew on men)

    ReplyDelete
  178. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2ee7a1de10568633d62525e7d29ec02be590a939fd57dfeb5fdc97d5d2e4082e.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  179. Harry, your thoughts of who is or isn't, or what makes or doesn't make a godol, is what counts and matters in who is or what makes a godol?

    ReplyDelete
  180. Esty, what about blacks? Are they in general terrible drivers too?

    ReplyDelete
  181. Try driving in Manhattan at any given day of the week. Any condensed area has bad driving. Explaining why you're racist, doesn't make you less of one.

    ReplyDelete
  182. As I replied to Shlomoh,
    Try driving in Manhattan at any given day of the week. Any condensed area has bad driving. Explaining why you're racist, doesn't make you less of one.

    ReplyDelete
  183. I didn't say worldwide Jewry eat fish and milk together. I said that people called him out on it, and people did.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Oh yeah? When your child needed a doctor, you went to Kupat Cholim or you checked what the Talmud said?

    ReplyDelete
  185. I am not talking about using them. There is a prohibition about using the medical advise unless it has been shown to be effective

    ReplyDelete
  186. if you want we can revist all of the endless arguments over Rav Natan Slifkin's book. The point about rejecting Chazal's science isn't limited to medicine.

    ReplyDelete
  187. See the Sdei Chemed Letter Reish #54

    ReplyDelete
  188. I am the judge for me, as you are for you, or rather as you should be, unless you have conceded your judgement and your mind to the gedoilim. I have not conceded my judgement to anyone at this present time, and when a gadol(any rabbi that I can think of at the moment) will tell me to jump off the bridge, I will use my judgement and abstain. Not because I don't follow afilu al yemin shehu smol, but because I don't consider him a gadol (any rabbi that I can think of at the moment). I also don't think that the gedoilim (any rabbi that I can think of at the moment) particularly care very much about other Jews and how dare they make life altering decisions for people who they don't love 'kamocha'. They don't care enough to truly consider all aspects of the question. That's what my judgement dictates to me (and incidentally happens to actually be what The Satmar Rav Z'L taught) and that is what I follow. And you can follow what your judgement dictates to you, if you have retained the right to your judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Harlem and Bed-Stuy are much worse.

    ReplyDelete
  190. The Satmar Rebbe zt'l at no time and in no manner stated, implied or otherwise indicated that our generation lacks gedolim. Nor did he share your sense of what makes a godol. Or your sense of the care the gedolim have for all of Klal Yisroel.

    Au contraire.

    ReplyDelete
  191. When referring to poor skills, I am not referring to the simple skill of driving, which can be perfected with more practice. I am referring to female characteristics that make women worse drivers even with years of experience.
    I am highly skeptical whether the innate female characteristics of low spatial awareness, panicking, and poor judgement under pressure, can ever be corrected to the point that they don't become detrimental to driving.

    Regarding rapists: Most men are not potential rapists; only men with a mental predisposition to rape lust are potential rapists. Women, on the other hand, are all potential rape victims, by the virtue of possessing a female body that is the object of the rapist's lust. (Your reference to male victims is not material to this discussion. Obviously the "wave of rapes" that the story references did not include male victims.)

    ReplyDelete

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