Friday, December 9, 2016

Woman's purpose is to be subordinate and supportive of the Man: Rav Dessler

It has become obvious that the true attitude of Judaism towards women has become deliberately obscured or ignored in the modern age. The consensus that women are subordinate to men is a message is that not welcome by many and clearly goes against the values of our present society. There are those who try to explain that this subordination means that  women are more important, or more spiritual or at least equal to a man. However that is not an accurate understanding of the consensus of accepted Torah sources and it is at best a distortion of what words mean. The question and challenge for us is whether we accept this message or we develop an alternative view of true equality and individuality or do we simply continue in a state of confusion and denial?



Update: The Maharal states that women do not accept being subordinate and consequently are more devastated when not treated properly

Maharal (Bava Metzia 59a): Rav said that a person should always be carefully not to oppress his wife because since she is sensitive and readily cries it is easy to make her feel oppressed. Thus we see that it is only his wife that he needs to be exceedingly careful not to hurt her feelings since she is ruled by him and therefore is much more likely to cry than other people who are not so easily oppressed. In other words because his wife is under his control she is more likely to be hurt by his words and cry when he wrongs her. In contrast a non Jewish slave is by nature not so affected by oppression and even a female Jewish slave does not readily cry because she has accepted the servitude to her master. Furthermore a female slave was not created for the purpose of being under his domain. It is only the wife who was created to be under the rule of her husband and as it says (Bereishis 3:16), And he shall rule over you. Therefore when she is oppressed it has a very strong impact on her. Furthermore in truth a wife does not accept being ruled by her husband because she views herself as his equal. In contrast a slave fully accepts that his master rules over him and therefore is not impacted as much as a wife who views herself as important and therefore is devastated when she is not treated with care.

Maharal (Nesiv Ahavas Re’ah 2): Bava Metzia (59a): All the heavenly gates are locked except the gate for those who have been verbally abused (ona’ah)…R’ Eliezar said that every transgression is punished by means of an intermediary except for that of ona’ah which is punished directly by G d. R’ Abahu said that there are three things for which access to heaven is not blocked – ona’ah, theft and idolatry… These are the words of the gemora. It is important to understand these words because the Sages are alluding to a very deep understanding of the nature of ona’ah. First of all it is important to know that there is a major difference between verbal ona’ah and hurting somebody through a physical beating. That is because verbal ona’ah specifically affects the soul of man when he is insulted. On the other hand there is no such thing as ona’ah in reference to the physical body. There is nothing that ona’ah can do to the body. We see this idea in Shemos (22:9): Don’t wrong the ger or oppress him but you know the soul of the ger. The Torah connects ona’ah with the soul which receives the ona’ah. Also all embarrassment is to the soul, as we will explain. Furthermore since ona’ah is to the soul and the soul is in G d’s hand as is stated in Vayikra Rabba (4:1)…the soul and justice are in G d’s left hand… Because of this the soul which suffers wrong is in fact in G d’s hand…Furthermore someone who insults and abuses another person shows that he does not consider that his victim has any importance or existence at all. He treats the victim as a non-entity… There are other matters for which the ona’ah is ever more severe. Bava Metzia (59a): A person should always be careful not to distress his wife because since she readily cries she is more readily distressed. The explanation of this that a person should be particularly careful with his wife because the woman is controlled by her husband and therefore her tears are much more common. Distressing another person is not so devastating. But concerning his wife since she is under his domain and if he should distress her verbally – she readily cries. In contrast the Jewish slave is not so affected by nature. Even a Jewish woman slave does not readily cry because she has accepted the state of servitude to her master on her own. However even though the wife is under the control of her husband, nevertheless she views her self as being a important. Therefore if there were any distress or insult against her from her husband she is strongly devastated – consequently she readily cries.


Additional sources of wife's is required to be subordinate to husband:

Rashi (Bereishis 1:28): And conquer the world – this word is spelled without a “vav” which allows it to be read as “he should conquer her”. This teaches that the male should conquer the female so that she doesn’t go out freely and regularly. (Bereishis Rabba 8:12). It also teaches that it is the man whose nature is to conquer is given the command to have children and not the woman (Yevamos 65b).

Tanna D'Vei Eliyahu Rabba (9): Why was Yael different than all the other women in that a great salvation of Israel came about through her hands and she killed the enemy general Sisra? Our Sages say that it was because she was a proper (kosher) woman and did the will of her husband. From this our Sages say that there is no proper woman except one who does the will of her husband.

Sefas Emes (Bereishis 3:16): And even though this is a good characteristic for a woman [not to ask directly for sexual intercourse]. The gemora that states that it is a good characteristic for a woman might be understood to mean that it is good because she hasn’t deviated from that which G d commanded and therefore she doesn’t ask directly for sexual relations as the result of being cursed by G d (Maharsal). And the reason that Rashi goes into what seems unnecessary length since he has already explained that she is not brazen...is to emphaze that everything in their relationship is up to the husband. Thus even though she doesn’t want intercourse but he does he can pressure her to comply. Or if he isn’t interetested in sexual relations, then even though she is interested she can not force him. That is the significance of Rash stating, “It is from him and not from her.”

Toras Chaim (Eiruvin 18a): Originally G d thought to create two human beings but in the end He only created one. Because if He created two, then both would be on the same level and the wife would not be subordinate to her husband and there would be fights between them. Therefore He only created one and the woman was created from the tail so that the husband should be the more important one and she should be subordinate to him. But what is the need to have a verse describing G d’s thoughts since it didn’t actually happen – and it seems to be just a history lesson. A possible answer is that the thoughts of G d are definitely brought into fruition. That means that a person who doesn’t merit, his wife will rule over him and she will not be subordinate to him – just as the initial thoughts of G d. This is expressed by the statement that if he merits she will help him and be subordinate to him. If he does not merit she will be his opponent because they are now equal in level and she will not obey him.

Bereishis Rabbah (8:12): And subdue her – A man is required to rule over his wife so that she doesn’t go out to the market. That is because every woman who goes out to the market place will eventually come to grief. This is learned from Dina as it says in Bereishis (34:1) And Dinah went out…and she got into trouble as it says and Shechem saw her. R’ Chanina says the law is in accord with this view.

Eiruvin (100b): She is wrapped like a mourner, banished from all man and imprisoned in a jail [because the honor of the king’s daughter is within – Rashi].

Menoras Hame’or (2:176): Even though the woman is the mate of the man – she should not view her husband as an equal but rather as her master as it says in Tehilim (45:12), Because he is your master and you should bow down to him. And the woman should love her husband and he rules over her as it says (Bereishis 3:16), And your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you. And if you view him as your master he will love you and you will be in his eyes as a sister as we see that Sarah refered to Avraham as master (Bereishis 18:12) and if you minimize talking to what is necessary then you will be even more beloved to your husband. And if you speak before him with grace and humility and if your eyes are attentive to him in the manner that a servant is attentive to her mistress – then you will be greatly valued and honored in his eyes. It relates in a Medrash that a certain Sage told his daughter when she was being taken her husband’s house, “My daughter, stand before him as you would before the king and serve him. And if you should act as a mother to him, he will be to you as a servant and will honor you as a privileged lady. However if you dominate him, he will be forced to act as your master and then you will be degraded in his eyes like a common servant. Embellish and praise him amongst his friends. And if guests come to him, whether relatives or friends – welcome them graciously and offer them generously in order to honor you husband in their eyes. Take good care of his house and all that he has and in this way you will find favor in his eyes and you will be the crown of your husband. Thus it says in Misheli(12:4), A virtuous wife is a crown to her husband.

Menoras HaMe’or (Marriage Chapter 10 page 34): There was a certain woman who made a wedding for her daughter. When she took her to her chasan’s house she said to her, “My daughter you should stand before your husband and serve him with awe and then he will lower himself with you and will become like your servant and honor you as royalty. However if you insist on dominating him then he in turn will dominate you and will not consider you have any significance and he will act as your master and you will be in his eyes debased like as slave.”

Ohr HaChaim (Bereishis 3:16): And to the woman He said...Corresponding to the issue of lust... G d said, And to your husband will be your desire that you will lust after him constantly. There is in this two aspects of the curse. 1) She will lust but will not have the freedom to satisfy it rather it will all depend on her husband and this aspect is also included in the statement “He will rule over you.” 2) In reality her desire is never fully satiated. This is a major difference between men and women. A man is capable of being fully satiated while a woman can not. It is truly a great curse that she is never able to satisfy her desires. ... In addition she thought she would remove G d’s great control because she wanted to be like G d...and as punishment G d added another layer of control and subjugation - her husband.

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. This is the manner of the daughters of Israel and the children of Israel who are holy and pure in their marriages. In this way the community will be pleasant and praiseworthy.

Melamed HaTalmidim (Miketz): And thus it is proper that every husband should rule over his wife. It is an embarrassment for him when his wife rules over him. And surely when his wife is constantly with him it is necessary to rule over her. If he does so then it is proper that he be included in the group of the perfectly righteous.

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Bereishis 4:7): And to your husband will be your desire and he will rule over you. This versus describes the relationship between the woman and her husband. The intent or this verse is clearly not describing a situation of constant warfare. As if the woman is always plotting against the man and tries to conquer him but the man is stronger and because of that he always is the dominant partner. Rather the verse is describing the longing the wife has for her beloved husband and she finds fulfillment to her essential being by devoting herself totally to the desires of the man and accepting the activities of her husband.

Rabbeinu Bachye (Bereishis 3:16): And he will rule over you – this punishment – that the husband should be the ruler and tells her what to do – is because she ordered him to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and thus it was measure for meaure.

Rabbeinu Bachye (Bereishis 3:16): And towards your husband will be your desire – Even though the wife is enslaved under the control of her husband and the normal situation is that a slave escapes from its master in order not to be enslaved – but there was a Divine decree that her desire should be to her husband. She therefore wants to be enslaved by him. Thus her behavior is the opposite of the normal way.

Ibn Ezra (Bereishis 3:16): And your desire – meaning your obediance. The reason why you will obey all that he commands you is because you are in his control to do as he wants.

Esther (1:22): Every man should be the master of his house and his household should speak his language.

Rashi (Esther 1:22): And speak his language - He can force his wife to learn his language if she is only fluent in another language.

Ibn Ezra (Esther 1:22): He should be the master of the house - That means he rules over his wife and she should not deviate from the customs of those who speak his language – not even to speak a different language...

Rashi (Devarim 22:16): And the father of the girl spoke – This teaches that a woman is not allowed to speak in the presence of a man [if the matter concerns him also].

Redak (Bereishis 3:16): And to your desire will to your husband - And even though giving birth will be painful, nevertheless you will still have a strong lust to have sexual intercourse with your husband. And he will rule over you – to order you to do what he wants like a master rules his slave.

Rashi (Bereishis 3:16): And your desire will be to your husband – to have sexual relations even though you are not so arrogant as to directly ask for it. And he will rule over you because everything is from him and not from you.

Rav Tzadok (Dover Tzedek page 41): Berachos (17a) asks, What is the merit that women have – to achieve the World to Come? [Concerning the pshat see Sotah 21a] The reason that this is a question is that women don’t have a mechanism for self-perfection as men do with Torah study. The gemora replies that their merit comes from assisting their husband and children in learning Torah... In other words their perfection is not acquired directly but only through their husbands and children. The husband is oblgated to provide her food, clothing and sexual relations while the son is obligated to honor her and fear her as is said in Kesubos (64a), A woman asks for a staff in her hand (son to support her) while alive and a spade for her burial. In other words her faults and imperfections are completed by the actions of others. Thus she draws perfection from them and her defining nature is being controlled or taken care of by others. That is why the Torah says your husband “will control you.” In contrast the woman is described in Kiddushin (30b), That she is in the domain of others and she has no control or any power and that is why whatever she acquires is automatically acquired by her husband. In fact the only genuine power she has is that her husband is obligated to her in order that he provide what she lacks and this is also true for the son as we mentioned before.

Torah Temima (Bereishis 3:16): And he will rule over you - we learn from this that a woman asks for intercourse through her actions while the man asks for it directly and this is a good trait for women (Eiruvin 100b). Even though the trait of modesty is a good trait, nevertheless it is a curse that she can’t openly express her desires to her husband. It should be noted that this doesn’t explain the language “And he will rule over you” in terms of its literal meaning of having a master… 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. …

Chasam Sofer (Chullin 142a): There is no question that the main issue at Mt. Sinai was that men listen. In other words that they listen and accept the yoke of Torah and mitzvos in their hearts. However in contrast to the women, there was no such concern for their acceptance in their hearts. Women needed to learn enough so that they would not say, “I don’t know” or “I didn’t hear” about this mitzva ever. However there was no concern for their acceptance of the yoke of Torah. That is because it is the obligation of the husband to force all the members of his household to serve G d. G d wants it that way so that the Torah is not dependent on women who are not serious. She needs to follow after the direction of her husband. Therefore the hearing and accepting of the Torah was connected to the men while only superficial learning was associated with the women. Then the children would come and see this amazing thing of how their fathers subjugated themselves to G d and His Torah and they would grow up also being G d fearing

Daas Zekeinim of Baalei Tosfos (Bereishis 3:16): There is a difficulty: why was the woman created from a rib, and not some other organ? So that she should be bent at the ribs and subservient to her husband.

Zohar (1:22a): A woman can not doing anything without the consent of her husband.


Michtav M’Eliyahu (volume 4 page 116): Eiruvin(18a) states that initially Adam and Eve were created with a single body that had two faces (partzuf) and that afterwards they were separated into two distinct individuals. The “body” (guf) is defined as the lowest aspect of the soul (as we explain elsewhere). And that is where man has his free-will. And this that Adam and Eve shared a common body means that initially the woman was not created except to enable man to have offspring – and therefore she didn’t have independence and free-will. But rather their free-will i.e., their body was one. It is important to understand that Adam was extremely wise i.e., his comprehension of truth was great. We can see this from that fact that he gave names to all the living creatures. That means that he was able to recognize the true nature and purpose of all creation. Thus the Torah says that all the names that Adam gave – that in fact was the creature’s name i.e., that Adam’s understanding was in agreement with that of G-d’s. (Chizkuni). In addition Adam himself had not sinned in any manner and in fact had not even thought of sinning. This can be seen from the fact that later he did not eat from the Tree of Life except to do what his wife wanted. That is because his comprehension was so great that when he was the sole agent of free-will it was impossible to seduce or corrput him. At that point before they were separated, there was no equality between the force of the Good Inclination and the force of the Bad Inclination. Therefore G-d separated the woman from him and gave the woman her own free-will. By this separation G-d strengthened the power of the Evil Inclination until between the both of them there was now an equality between the strength of the Good Inclination and the Bad Inclination. (This of course is understood to be according to their level in the Garden of Eden.) The question is why were they created in this manner with a single body and then separated – in a manner that the Evil Inclination was not a meaningful force against the Good Inclination? The answer was that it was done in order to establish the predominance of the Good Inclination and to strengthen man’s recognition of truth. In this way he would be aided later on against the seduction of the Evil Inclination. So in the initial creation, woman was only a utensil for the man and she had no independent free-will as we explained before.

In truth, even now the woman’s nature and free-will is to be a utensil for the man as it states in (Sanhedrin 22a), A woman is unformed (golem) and doesn't not establish a covenant except with the man who makes her into a utensil. Thus the nature of woman is to experience respect and importance through the respect and importance given to her husband. [This can be explained by saying that the purpose of the woman is from the aspect of “ner mitzvah” (the candle of a mitzva) while that of the man is from the aspect of “Torah ohr” (the light of the Torah). [See Zohar Teruma 166a). Thus the work of the woman is in preparing and fixing the material aspects of the mitzva and good deeds i.e. the preparation of the candle (the physical needs i.e., the home). In contrast the work of the man is to become elevated in Torah and to light the candle with the light of the Torah so that the spiritual light of the Torah fills the home. And just like a candle with the fire is nothing so is the fire without a candle – because it can not provide illumination (Zohar Teruma 166a). Thus the work of the man and the work of the woman complement and complete each other].

171 comments :

  1. thanks for interesting posts on this issue. Imho if we focus on the needs of Klal Yisroel , the question becomes how each person fulfills his or her role, so equality is not the question. Subordination maybe the way that Klal Yisroel achieves its purpose and goals. The problem is that in today's world position, title, status or authority don't bring automatic respect. We have to be authoritative, that our authority stems from who we are as people, our greatness and ability to inspire others So the situation is similar to the parent who asked if his son must stand up for him when he entered the room - The Rov replied yes , but remeber to be a worthy father as well. The challenges are many - the many single women - what is their role and purpose in the world , marriages where the woman is more of the bread winner and more of an intellectual than her husband. I don't think we can ' dumb down' women, but we need to do something to ' upgrade ' men

    ReplyDelete
  2. How do three opinions stating that women plus a Rav Dessler turn into a consensus that women are subordinate? All the gemaros may be speaking of the situation in earlier times when women generally had no opportunity to learn.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Does your wife read your blog?

    ReplyDelete
  4. it is not based on 3 opinions plus Rav dessler. There is more to come and so far I haven't found any dissent. Even Rav Hirsch who mentions that men and women are equal mentions that women the reason that women are exempt from time bound mitzvos is because they are subordinate. In other words they are of equal value but women are still subordinate.

    Please find me views that say otherwise. I haven't seen any

    ReplyDelete
  5. You are merely changing the playing field. Pretty clear that the more simple reading is that they do have Tzelem Elokim and Olam Haba -- and yet still may have the role of being supportive and subordinate. Don't confuse the two.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am not changing the playing field - I am simply expanding to associated topics

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just as a Kohen is superior to a Yisroel, a man is superior to a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Somewhat related to this topic is the Jewish Law that when a man and woman's lives are in danger, you save the man's life first.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Are you suggesting he should hide parts of the Torah from his wife or otherwise be embarrassed by parts of the Torah?!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Subordination means 'being in a lower position', and that's what women in the past were due to their illiteracy and societal values. If subordination meant "women are more important", women's situation would not be obscured neither ignored.

    I am not sure how European Jews behaved towards material possessions, but in the non-jewish european society, women were not even allowed to possess inheritances, lands, etc. In many cases, if she became a widow without a son, the government would take her land and send her off to her parents or just let her die. Jewish law protects women, but... societal values also play an important role in Jewish society. I will not even start talking about the situation of mizrahi women from the past...

    Developing a new view based in our current society is a must. Today we have women who earn more than their husbands, stay-at-home-dads, intellectual single women who won't ever marry (not by their choice, but because men are intimidated of their brains), righteous women married to rashas... and what to say about the few single jewish women who are opting to in vitro, because they recognize they will never go to the chupah but still want a child?

    Society changed and the most important: women's mentality changed. Before, it was easy to insufe a servant mentatily on Jewish women, "marry and serve your husband because you can not do anything else in life"... today it no longer apply for most of us.

    Men and women are different, they complement each other, and that's why the word 'subordination' is not the right one when describing their interaction. Insted of 'subordination, the word 'partnership' sounds more realistic to our times.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Where in what he wrote did you see a suggestion? It looks a question to me.
    Which parts of the Torah do you think he would want to hide? Why do you think he would want to hide it? Why do you think that he is embarrassed? Even if he is embarrassed, how do you see that he is asking other people to be embarrassed?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Is this not the same author who also recommends to beat children, and if they did nothing wrong, beat them all the same, so that they learn to respect authority?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jewish law also does not provide women with an inheritance unless there are no sons. Otherwise an inheritance only is distributed among the sons, per Halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ספורנו בראשית פרק ב
    עזר כנגדו. עזר שיהיה כמו שוה לו בצלם ודמות, כי זה הכרחי לו בידיעת צרכיו והמציאם במועדם. ואמר "כנגדו", כי הנכנס לכף נגד דבר אחר כשיהיה שוה לו בשקל יהיה "נגדו" בקו ישר. אבל כשלא יהיו שוים שני הנשקלים, יהיה זה עולה וזה יורד, ולא יהיו זה נגד זה בקו ישר. ובזה האופן אמרו רז"ל שקול משה כנגד כל ישראל (מכילתא יתרו א'. שיה"ש א, סד). אמנם לא היה ראוי שיהיה העזר שוה לו לגמרי, כי אז לא היה ראוי שיעבוד וישרת אחד מהם לחבירו:

    ReplyDelete
  15. While The Torah doesn't change, there are chidushai Torah which emerge in every generation through the inspiration of the current world situation. אל תאמר מה היה שהימים הראשונים היו טובים מאלה. These times are Hashems creation and the Chidushey Torah which emerge are Hashem's will. So it isn't sufficient to just quote Rav Dessler and be left feeling that we haven't adequately covered the topic, but instead we need to see how the truths which are taught by the gedoilim of earlier generations can be understood in light of today's world, and today's scholars need to be mechadesh such understanding. But we can't say new different things. We can only clarify old things. And additionaly you'd be surprised how much you'll find in old sefarim which address things for us amazingly, but in each generation, the ideas which are best understood are the one's which have been taken from the old sources to be higlighted.

    The Ramcha'l explains that since it is a man's job to provide everything for his wife, his personality is formed and developed through his wife's needs, as he works on himself to sufficiently fulfill them. (But they are only her true needs which he should fulfill, not necesarily what she says she needs, or else his personality will be formed with flaws, to fulfill wrong and bad needs.)

    So a good man must know what is really best for his wife, and what type of succes would fulfill her in the most real way. She can't know this on her own. He needs to be a real caring husband, who cares to really know what makes her whole and fulfilled. Her subordanance to him means that he gives her her fulfillment, and that she doesn't take it on her own.

    Let me give a simple practical example. She thinks she wants to become a lawyer, and asks that he should help her get there. He cares about her 100% and therefore makes it his business to know her well. He knows what kind of things give her the feeling of fulfillment. He knows that more than anything she wants to feel like a worthy person(as is always the case), and he understands why she thinks that becoming a lawyer might make her feel great, but he believes that it the bigger picture, it won't. it is the course of least resistance to just follow her request but it isn't the more caring thing to do. He should suport her fully and have discussions with her to help clarify her needs. Or, by contrast, a wife might be fulfilled by having a professional career and suporting the family, and she needs to be helped to get to realise that. The wife, when she knows that her husband really cares, subordinates herself to him, and to his will, because she knows it is truly best for her in every way.

    In order for him to know what's best for her, he needs to put aside all of his personal biases and care only for her true good. This is a tremendous avoda and he developes his personality through it. Every woman presents different challanges and is tailor fit for her husband to develope his shlaimus, and he is tailor fit for her to be her complete mashpia.

    The purpose of the union is to serve Hashem. Therefore, the woman's shlaimus needs to be understood by the husband in that light. Weather or not she should become a lawyer/professional, needs to be examined on that basis. Will it add Torah to the household, meaning husband and children, or not? If it won't than it isn't her shlaimus and doesn't fulfill her in the real way. Because a person isn't fulfilled by not doing what's right.

    עזר כנגדו - זכה עזר, לא זכה מנגדתו. When a woman is unhappy with her husband, it indicates that he isn't fulfilling her. So then his personality isn't being formed as it should. It is for his good that she presents her unhappiness, and it is her nature to do so. This awakens him to his task, which is his avoda.

    So what about a single woman? I have not adressed that here and have run out of time for the moment. But I described her position within a union of man and woman.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Who says a Cohen is superior? He only gets kavod honor, and he's kadosh holy.

    And he gets various responsibilities in the avodah, and 24 matnot kehunah priestly entitlement s.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You're raising good points.

    However, the discussion must begin with family values. Women - or men - who do not believe in raising a family should be out of the discussion. They are clearly not part of the Torah system.

    Once family values are a given, the only question that remains is: why should a woman who is intelligent, talented, intellectually independent, subordinate herself to a husband, just because he wears pants?

    I believe the answer would be that the family structure requires a wife's recognition of her place in the family hierarchy, just as a child must recognize his place in the family structure, even if he's more intelligent than his parents. (not suggesting that a woman is like a child, just bringing this as an example to make my point) Just as every functioning unit comprised of different people, be it a community, a company, or a school, must have a hierarchy irrespective of individual member's capabilities.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yep, one and the same.

    ReplyDelete
  19. the major problem with this is that the wife not only is expected to be subordinate to husband and sacrifice personal interests for the family - but she is also expected to support the family with a job- something which is actually the husband's responsibility. Once you breach the family values in one area it is reasonable to ask whether the husband now should take over the wife's role? If so then the whole system of roles and responsibilities is open to reassignment and perhaps reversal of traditional roles.

    ReplyDelete
  20. following this logic - who says a man is superior - he just has the entitlement to his wife's support and respect and deference to his wishes.
    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

    ReplyDelete
  21. did you just say that a woman doesn't really know what she wants and what will fullfil her?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hu Yimshol Bach is a curse that we have lived with for millenia. It's not the way things are supposed to be, it was a result of their sin. Just as you don't work the fields any longer, we don't need to be servants any longer. Thank God most Jewish men understand that women are people and don't need to enhance themselves by putting us down.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Politically IncorrectDecember 6, 2016 at 2:58 PM

    Are you admitting that you don't believe in the divinity of the possuk in Mishlai, "He who spares the rod, hates his son"?

    Perhaps if the contemporary "enlightened" society would accept that, then our moral atmosphere won't be so decadent. .....

    ReplyDelete
  24. Politically IncorrectDecember 6, 2016 at 3:02 PM

    The Tanya describes the Kabbalistic substance of the neshomos of Kohanim and Levi'im and it is evident that are superior to a Stam Yisroel. ..

    ReplyDelete
  25. Then it could still be a guy in a duck suit

    ReplyDelete
  26. Part of the intention was tongue-in-cheek. I can't imagine an intelligent woman (who hasn't spent years in seminary being brainwashed) reading these last few posts and not being disgusted with what is being called Torah Judaism's true view.
    But if we're going to go with the position that women are subordinates to their husbands like slaves to master then let's also remember why there was no viable slave trade in Israel when the Romans first checked the area out.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Very good point.

    But let's be accurate: The Jewish family structure, as codified in chareidi society, has not changed per se. Rather, men have been encouraged to remain in learning for as long as possible. Girls have been encouraged to facilitate this by becoming breadwinners.

    But this is only so long as the husband is learning. In some communities (such as Satmar), this period is not more than two-three years. In some (such as Lakewood), it can be as long as ten or fifteen years. In others (such as Litai-Israel) it continues indefinitely. But definitely by the time it comes to marrying off children, most husband will have assumed much financial responsibility.

    So
    1) Wife's role has not been reassigned; wife steps in to fill the void created by husband's pursuit of his goals.
    2) Wife does this out of the goodness of her heart, not out of progressive gender values.
    3) It is only done for facilitation of husband's learning. As soon as her breadwinning no longer facilitates this, she reverts to her traditional family role.

    ReplyDelete
  28. since you acknowledge it is a curse for the sin of Eve, on what basis do you claim it is not relevant anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  29. We were all cursed with multiple curses- men and women. They were curses that we would endure, not commands. Men don't have to oppress women - it was a curse that they would do so (both for men and women I would say), meaning it was NOT the natural order or intent of creation. We should all rejoice in the righting of a wrong. Do you feel we should not give women epidurals to alleviate their suffering in childbirth? That was a curse as well. Should we shun farming tools, water irrigation and supermarkets and take the men from their yeshivot and put them in the field to work the soil for food? That was a curse as well? How can we accept the alleviation of one curse but not the others? On what basis?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I do not record this "income belong to her husband", I thought only husbands had obligations to provide for the household... as far as I knew, the woman can share with him (she has no obligation) whatever she gains, it's one of the 4 man's rights in a marriage. If I remember correctly, per halacha, when a man dies, he must leave part of his inheritance to help his widow and single daughters... but I read that many years ago... can't say I remember it well enough to discuss. Anyhow, if the halacha is like you say, it needs a new interpretation for the current generation of Jewish women, because no woman will give her income to her husband, sorry, that just does not happen, we have to be realistic.

    Also, Gracia Mendez Nasi, a rich widow who lived in the times of the Inquisition (she was born a few years after the passing of Don Abravanel) inherited a lot of money and used most of it to save Jewish lives from the inquisitors.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is not taken literally, so why "the rod" should be?????????????????

    ReplyDelete
  32. I disagree of your second point ("Wife does this out of the goodness of her heart, not out of progressive gender values"), in some cases, wife does it because "everybody else does" in her community, it becomes an unnoficial rule that label who is frum enough or who is rebelling. Some ladies suffer... we talk among ourselves... and some hate to get home and have to do all house/baby chores while the husband is absent.

    Ideally, the learning husband should help with some house chores... but in practicality, some don't and that is a huge unspoken problem.

    ReplyDelete
  33. it does not surprise me...

    and even so someone wants to say "subordination really means women are more important"

    ReplyDelete
  34. Again, all these views were more than natural and welcome in the time they were written. But times have changed. Stagnating Torah's interpretation was the main reason it was forbidden to write down the Oral Law, right?

    The dangers of the past made it mandatory to write it down, but... had it not been writen, Torah's view would keep growing until our times.

    These texts were based in the view of that time, like " he does he can pressure her to comply"... oy vavoy... he can not!!!!! Sorry, but some of these statements do not belong in our times and the ones that belong, need to be seriously revised.

    "an eye for an eye" has tons of interpretations and should not be taken literally at any circunstance, so this thing of "subordination" should be better interpreted to our times.

    "That is because it is the obligation of the husband to force all the members of his household to serve G d" --- another statement that does not apply to many of our families, where the mother is religious (did teshuva, converted, etc) and the father is not... she is the only one who teaches Torah value to her children... what to say about single mothers?

    The 'ner mitzva' example also does not apply to subjugation as neither the fire or the candle subjugate each other, they are partners. Different, but still partners.

    ReplyDelete
  35. not subordinate in that way - it means their time is not their own once they have families- and as a working and volunteering and learning mom, I can attest to that. My needs are often 'subordinate' to others in my family, but not because I am less than, or a slave, but because I am able to give them what they need. I'd be very careful with the way I categorize Jewish women... I cannot see a positive outcome for Judaism if the men start walking around telling women to be subservient to them... can't imagine what you think you'd gain other than a massive headache

    ReplyDelete
  36. So, I'm trying to understand your possible motivation for telling Bnot Yisrael that they are not tzelem elokim, have no olam habah without a tzadik on their arm, and that they need to be subservient to their husbands. EVEN if that were true (and I don't have the time to go through all of your cherry picked sources, but using Rashi's explanation of Achashverosh's announcement as a Jewish idea??) EVEN if we say that these men were 100% accurate in their interpretations as you have laid them out, I need to ask, what do you see resulting from raising this idea? Do you want the Gedolai Hador to tell all of the Jewish women and girls that they are simply here to serve men? Do you want to tell all the girls who want to believe they matter on their own merits, that they in fact do not? What is the positive you see from this? Whether or not you think women should have their own sense of self or not, most of us do, how do you see this revelation being positive for the Jewish people? Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  37. Do you think theology is read into the sources of learned from them?
    Do you think citing undisputed views of Chazal is cherry picking?
    Your view is simply not scholarship but is guided by your adherence to secular values

    Feel free to vote mainstream sources that you think refute what I have posted it show how I misunderstood these rabbinic authorities

    ReplyDelete
  38. The sources say subordinate
    Show how I misquoted anything

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sorry but your understanding reflects a non Orthodox view point

    ReplyDelete
  40. You quote rashi explaining Achashverosh's dictum as a Jewish rule- it is not. But forgetting that, I asked you, what is your goal here? What do you see as positive in telling women they are not tzelem elokim and must serve their husbands? I'm just not understanding how this serves the Jewish people (assuming that your aim is to do so).

    ReplyDelete
  41. Because that is how it has been understood by mainstream sources through our history

    ReplyDelete
  42. How does describing the views of mainstream sources about Judaism need a justification?

    ReplyDelete
  43. You are deliberately ignoring what the rabbis said

    ReplyDelete
  44. ah ok so this is simply a scholarly endeavor? If so, you're lacking many many other sources

    ReplyDelete
  45. No, you are ignoring what I said above in response to your question and my subsequent questions to you.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Politically IncorrectDecember 7, 2016 at 12:05 AM

    While I definitely understand your sentiments, or would be grossly problematic to present the argument that times have changed, since we uphold the Torah view which we all accept as eternally from G-d......

    ReplyDelete
  47. Politically IncorrectDecember 7, 2016 at 1:13 AM

    We know that an eye for an eye is not taken literally because our Chazal of blessed memory, whose explanation of The Written Torah is vital to understanding what The Torah means to say, up to its decision, which is final and binding upon us, have said so.

    As for sparing the rod, although not an actual din min HaTorah or mid'Rabbanan, is merely good advice from the wisest of all men. It also happens to be common sense and its absence in contemporary society seems problematic in many ways. My talking to "non Torah" people, for whatever it's worth on the Da'as Torah blog, have confirmed that they acknowledge the problem comparing Contemporary norms with their upbringing...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Its not as easy as it looksDecember 7, 2016 at 1:34 AM

    The fact that you need to 'upgrade men' to make your point stand in today's world suggests that it is not true.

    Personally, I don't think what you are saying is helpful, and that roles have definitely changed in modern times.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Because the potential for doing harm is great. We have enough problems with teens at risk. This kind of a discussion can only create problems. I am not advocating a "feel good" solution, and sugar coating halacha and hashkafa, just not raising the topic for open discussion. We know that the gemarah lists various topics that are not to be discussed in different situations. That does not mean that they arent Torah, just that due to the potential for harm, different in each case, warrents that there should be parameters set for when they could be discussed.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Politically IncorrectDecember 7, 2016 at 3:10 AM

    Pardon my heat, but The Halacha is not subject to reinterpretation. Reinterpretation Judaism = Reform Judaism, period.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Politically IncorrectDecember 7, 2016 at 3:26 AM

    She has no obligation to share her income with him? (She might, though, be able to say that she doesn't take financial support and then be allowed to keep her earnings. ...too many tangents) The issues of interests of this blog (correction requested if I am wrong,) is not what various individuals do, but rather the prevalent distortion of the authentic Da'as Torah. If they are ignorant or uninterested in Da'as Torah, is one thing, (I will even listen to you explaining how it may be difficult for a working woman to relinquish her earnings - as long as you don't say that the Halacha needs to be changed ...) but to misrepresent it due to POLITICAL CORRECTNESS will not be tolerated on this blog. .... (which I am sure you agree with anyway :)....

    ReplyDelete
  52. You can rephrase what I wrote as "Wife does this out of the goodness of her heart, or, in some cases, out of a perceived need to follow societal trends, which have been established by other women who do so out of the goodness of their hearts, but not out of progressive gender values".

    Other than that, the point remains the same: the current chareidi woman-as-breadwinner system does not reflect an inherent reversal or reassignment of gender roles in the family structure.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Chazal instituted a system of checks and balances, as it were, in marriage. Wife must surrender her earnings to husband, and husband must support her financially. If a woman says "Sorry, I will not give my income to my husband," husband can say "Sorry, no more free lunch". It's quid-pro-quo.
    These are principles that are in practice until today in every Orthodox bais din in the world.

    When a man dies, if he has sons and daughters, his sons inherit all of his assets, and his daughters (until they are emancipated) and wife are supported by his estate. If he leaves only daughters, they inherit all his assets and his wife is supported by the estate.

    By the way, contrary to popular belief, this system does not put daughters at a disadvantage. Since in an ideal Torah world everyone marries, the women will gain a greater share of their father-in-law's inheritance, instead of a greater share in their father's. Do the math.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I know... and that's where lies my personal conflict with this theme...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Wish I was more versed in the texts... maybe I could come up with a better argument... it may not sound orthodox, but I can't deny that's how I feel regarding this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Shosh316: even without all the sources that Rabbi Eidenson brought, I don't think chazal or the torah tried to hide the feeling that woman were second class in society (e.g. ברכת שלא עשני אשה, woman can't learn torah, cannot be witnesses, can't serve on any position of power, don't inherit). We can debate as to whether that is the correct approach or not (and if it is, what to do with something that sits so poorly with most of us) but I think it is a mistake to say it has no basis in the torah or chazal.

    Also I don't think Rabbi Eidonson was trying to prove his point solely from vhu Yimshal Bach.

    ReplyDelete
  57. And also the same who founded a school where students were beaten mercilessly, more or less up to now?

    ReplyDelete
  58. no one is questioning your feelings. The issue is simply what do the mainstream classic commentaries and authorities say on the matter. First we need to establish what is.

    ReplyDelete
  59. that is not what I have heard from contemporary rabbinical sources

    ReplyDelete
  60. I don't know anything about that one.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The question is if the rod is meant to be used to hit or in the manner of the "big stick" that Roosevelt spoke of.

    ReplyDelete
  62. First of all their is a problem of hypocrisy. You know A to be true but you conceal it and say it really is B. People go off the derech when they discover they have been lied to "for their own good".
    Second the apologetics or coverup has become so pervasive that many people are simply unaware of the true views or think that it is a minority opinion that can be ignored

    While there are topics not to be discussed - this is not one of them

    You can not deal effectively without reality if you don't know what it is.

    If you are ashamed of what Chazal say but you cover it up or simply refused to think about it - it is not a healthy situation

    ReplyDelete
  63. Shulchan Aruch says a child should be hit as a form of discipline.

    ReplyDelete
  64. DT, what have you heard from some contemporary rabbinical sources?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Their husbands will get a share of their father-in-laws estate, not them per se.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I presume you are a woman. If you are single, I didn't address your situation. If you are married, then you should know that marriage is a union in which the couple is, in a very important sense, like one person. Therefore each part of the couple has a special role. The role of the husband is to decide what's best. In order to do this he must sincerely consider all aspects of everyone's individual and collective well being. This role can't belong to both, just as each part of a single person has a special specific role. The heart, the brain, the arms, the lungs, the eyes etc. each have a role which can't be accomplished by another part. If both are the ultimate deciders, there will be no peace. Even in collaboration, one has to be the one to finalize the decision. Just as the brain decides, and that doesn't say that the heart is less important, so I don't think it should be offensive to women to realize her role and that of her husband.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Politically IncorrectDecember 7, 2016 at 2:31 PM

    I disagree with your second paragraph. The wife being the breadwinner is problematic in that it does disturb the balance of roles. But then, many will argue that it is to perpetuate the advancement of Torah learning. .........

    ReplyDelete
  68. I did not mean to lie to them. In this case no one asked you, in a public forum, about this topic. Just don't bring it up. I didn't see you discuss the state of Kashrus in Eretz Yisroel, certainly not in this depth.You chose to bring this topic up. Why? There is the potential for much harm. Everyone knows that when someone is in a fragile state of mind you choose what information to share with them. Unfortunately, in our times many people are in a fragile state. There are probably many more important things for them to internalize than whether wwomen are a Tzlem Elokim. Lets try to have them feel good aboutt the beuty of shabbos, for example, the importance of Tznius, and in what manner THEY are special, without trying to focus on what to them may seem degrading, even if true. Not all that truths MUST be said. Of course you can not lie in any way. Just don't bring the topic to the table for discussion. There is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost!

    ReplyDelete
  69. that women are being ruined by being forced to be the breadwinner - especially by working in an office
    That women are learning to build relationships without men not their husband in the context of supporting the family and that that is not good
    That the man does not accept that it is his obligation to support the wife and automatically assumes she is supposed to be the breadwinner - even if he is not learning or is not learning very much

    ReplyDelete
  70. The wife is destined to be a "ezer kenegdo", she helps him to fullfill hashem's will, but if he goes against the torah, she will be "kenegdo".

    to Avraham Avinu, Hashem says: "kol asher tomar eleicha sara shma be kolah."
    We also learn from Avraham Avinu that he built sarah's tent before his own, which is in compliance with the principle that a husband has to honor his wife more than himself "ichabed otah yoter migufo"

    So it is absolutely not a forgone conclusion that the husband is always right, that all decisions go according to his will. Sometimes the wife is wise, so he should listen to her. Somtimes he has to fulfill his wife's needs before he fullfills his own.

    So I think it is a question of perspective: if you want peace in a couple, it is best that both spouses are respectful and eager to serve the other.

    So a wife can tell herself that she should be subservant to her husband, (as long as he does not abuse of his power, as long as he is also considerate to her needs), and a husband should tell himself that he should honor his wife more than himself and listen to what she says. This will be a marraige that lasts, full of peace and happiness.

    A marriage full of unhappiness and strife is one where the husband tells the wife that she is subordinate to him, but neglects to honor her more than himself.

    Furthermore, I do not think it is particularly healthy in a couple when one spouse has to bear all the responsibility. If the wife is subordinate, she can free herself of all responsibility, and this can lead to unhealthy, passive-aggressive behavior. That's not what most men want in a wife. They want an ezer kenegdo, someone they can confide in.

    Furthermore, halacha leaves ample space for each family to make their own arrangements. Halacha on inheritance and marriage contracts are default solutions, but every couple can really find their own solution.

    For example, a parent could distribute his inheritance equally between male and female children, and this is the way it is mosty done tody, even among hareidim.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I will read more (online) on this topic before proceeding.

    ReplyDelete
  72. No... it's not like that. Men have obligation to support, it's his first obligation as a husband and it does not depend on the woman's will to give him her income. There are opinions (I don't remember the source, but I'm sure even the Jewish Library and other websites mentions it) that say that if the woman does not comply to the men's main right inside a marriage (have a decent home) the man can deny his support. But... it's not the final deal, it's just an opinion among many others. However, in a personal thought, any woman who earns an income and denies to help in the household has a serious lack a character. But at the same time, no woman will giver her salary to the husband.

    ReplyDelete
  73. 'Share' and "belongs to" are different subjects. I share my income (with my husband's obligation to support me) by helping our family expenses, as any other decent woman does. It's a no brainer. Men have obligations and rights... I do not record women having 'obligations to share' something... its good if she does it, but if she doesn't, since she has no obligation, is she accountable for "punishment"?

    ReplyDelete
  74. That has nothing to do with accepting the divinity of the passuk in Mishlei.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I once heard a darshan relating his personal experience, returning to Yeshivas Mir as a young avrech. He came to tell Rav Chaim Shmulevitz that he came to learn in kollel. Rav Chaim said to him, "You have a chiyuv to support your wife; how can you neglect your duty?"
    The avrech was shocked, "My wife is willing to accept responsibility for parnasa so I can learn."
    "Great", said Rav Chaim, "I just want you to always remember what you just said: you are responsible but your wife volunteered to fill your place."

    The confusion that RDE refers to is most prevelant in the Israeli-Litai world.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Politically IncorrectDecember 7, 2016 at 6:06 PM

    Pardon my mood, but did Mishlei mention Roosevelt?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Politically IncorrectDecember 7, 2016 at 6:11 PM

    To acknowledge our personal conflicts with the truth, indicates that we are arriving there! This blog gives us the opportunity to think in areas that we would not question in public due to political sensitivity. ..

    ReplyDelete
  78. Politically IncorrectDecember 7, 2016 at 6:31 PM

    Excellent comment, Harry!

    Although you have not asked my haskamah......
    .....this one really fits with Mesorah.........

    ReplyDelete
  79. Politically IncorrectDecember 7, 2016 at 6:43 PM

    Harry, Harry. .....
    ....take it easy. ......

    Although I just before gave you my unsolicited haskamah, I think that over here, Harry got carried awaynot just from the conventional, but also from the traditional - it is Da'as Torah that needs to be our *stationary* (and NOT a floating) lighthouse to guide us. It is *our* struggle to use our determination to its fullest and not succumb to alien influences....

    ReplyDelete
  80. Politically IncorrectDecember 7, 2016 at 7:31 PM

    Okay, we're getting a little technical: this is a takanah from Chazal that a woman's earnings go to her husband, since he supports her because of his Biblical obligation, just that she has the power say (she might do that, of she earns more than what he gives her): I want to keep my earnings and I forfeit your support. But nonetheless, we hope that a man, in this respect will use his 'common sense'...

    ReplyDelete
  81. If you are really having trouble, and not just trolling: The passuk in Mishlei mentions a rod, it does not say what to do with it. So, your comment accusing "Berel" of questioning the divinity of Mishlei is off base.

    ReplyDelete
  82. She knows of none.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Jewish law states that the husband owns all of his wife's salary/income.

    ReplyDelete
  84. You don't agree that there is potential for great harm, or do you mean that you agree that there is potential for great harm but that is not a reason that you should not initiate such a discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  85. I hope you never end up in an Orthodox Jewish matrimonial bais din, but if you ever do, you might be in for a surprise.
    Yes, in Jewish Law, all earnings of a married woman belong to her husband in exchange for his obligation to support her. She has the option of forfeiting his support in order to keep her earnings to herself, otherwise, her earnings legally belong to him.
    I think it's quite selfish on a wife's part to assume that her husband has the obligation to support her (share his earnings with her), while she may choose to keep her earnings for herself. Sheli sheli v'shelcha sheli!?

    ReplyDelete
  86. How about the discussion of whether women have to lean at the pesach Seder. If i remember, the original halacha was that women don't lean because they are subservient to their husbands, but "important" women do lean. Then, it was said that nowadays, all women are "important" and therefore lean. This seems to show that the halachic view of the role of women CAN change over time in certain ways to reflect changing reality.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Hu imshol bach should be read in context: el ishech tehi teshukatech we hu imshol bach.
    He can reign over you because you want to be with him. i.e. if he is abusive and you do not love him, there is no "hu imshol bach"

    ReplyDelete
  88. Haven't seen any commentary that says such a thing - have you?

    ReplyDelete
  89. important point.

    halacha didn't change women changed. It was not that society recognized that they had misunderstood the nature of women - but that there was a change in the status and nature of women. For example women at one time rarely left their house and thus had very little social life. When they did go out and saw an acquaitance they were so excited that they would take off their jewelry to show what they got. This is the basis that women are prohibited from wearing jewelry on Shabbos. Their are poskim who say that since women today are important and they have greater self-respect - they would not take off their jewelry in the street and thus they are allowed to wear jewelry. The Mishna Berura was not happy with that heter

    The issue is whether the fact that women today are more likely to be able to support themselves and to knowledgeable in Torah and general issues - does that make any difference? Similar to the question of a deaf person can now hear with electronic devices - does that make a difference as to how he/she is viewed in halacha. Or if women today doesn't have a problem of being single and therefore they are not desperate to get married to anything which is labeled a man - does that change the halachic presumption that women are desperate to get married? Rav Soloveitchik said it makes no difference while Rav Moshe Feinstein said it does.

    ReplyDelete
  90. realistically any mention of aspects of Judaism that differ from the norms of secular society can cause problems.

    One can try and protect people from being aware of these differences - i.e., apologetics - or you can approach them directly. I think much harm has occurred by an attempt to convey the impression we are more attached to secular values than the secular society. I don't see any reason for not addressing issues that are well known outside our circles but that are covered up within our circles. The status of women is one of those

    Concealing generally indicates that these issues are embarrassing and shameful and reflect poorly on Yiddishkeit. My view was expressed in the review article by Rabbi Mayer Twerski - these are things which G-d has told us to do or think or believe. Thse are interpretations from Chazal, Rishonim or Achronim. They should be learned and understood - not concealed.

    ReplyDelete
  91. You obviously are not aware that this issue has been a public concern for perhaps 50 years. Rav Moshe Feinstein even addressed it in a teshuva O.C. 4 49. Rav Soleveitchik addressed it. Rav Hirsch has addressed it etc etc.

    These attitudes are associated this have a significant impact on marriage and divorce on family. Yet you say - why discuss them when we can focus on inspiring people and making them feel good. Yes the Romans were good at providing the circus to distract people from reality. Adults need to be aware of reality and not sit in a corner with a security blanket sucking their thumbs.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I just saw both of your comments for the first time, the critical one and this haskoma. I appreciate your open mindedness. I didn't ch'v intend in my earlier comment to undermine messorah at all. Chas vesholom! But I am saying, as I said previously, that we must be able to understand what we are learning, or else it's not really proper learning. When new situations arise which arouse new questions to challenge and make us unable to understand the teachings of The Torah, we then need sit sit down again and learn the sugya afresh. New understandings and nuances will need to emerge, if such nuances will help understand the established truths, as long as they don't go against anything that has been established as a Torah truth. But nothing will be changed ch'v. As you see in my earlier post after my hakdama, I offered some new insight without changing even a hair.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I like your technical explanation. Thank you. Sounds more logical.

    ReplyDelete
  94. There's an important principle I've heard from Rav Leuchter:
    The joy and experience of learning is learning a new perspective that changes what you thought previously. One whose mind is not open to changing previously held beliefs, and who just reinterprets what they learn to fit with their previous mindset, is not really learning.
    So when you confront knowledge that is disturbing, instead of trying to harmonize your previous thoughts with what you've just learned, know that that disturbing feeling is an indication that you are in the midst of the learning process.
    According to this, it seems that some of those reacting on this blog are resisting the learning process.

    ReplyDelete
  95. very important point -
    would you like to write a guest post or perhaps you have something from Rav Leuchter that I could post

    ReplyDelete
  96. Rav Leuchter's shiurim are available online at https://torahdownloads.com/s-245-rabbi-reuven-leuchter.html?page=2

    I wouldn't mind writing a guest post regarding some of my thoughts on gender inequality in Torah Law. But I need to maintain my anonymity.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I only just saw this now. The notion that by virtue of gender, one person will always be correct and know the right thing to do is patently false. Plenty of men do not know the right answers or are not thinking of the woman's/family's best interest - so too women of course. The idea of a woman being expected to listen to whatever her husband says, no matter its merit is truly bizarre. What are the limits of this? What becomes of marriage if women are automatons? How do we raise children if everything we do must be approved? It is sad that people believe that a marriage should work this way, or that women would willingly negate their own God given critical thinking and understanding. What a sad picture of marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I dunno...can I just have a plate of food when I come home? And maybe the house not a mess? I'll help clean, but come on, girls, please! Also, stay in shape, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  99. thanks for the link

    no problem with anonymity

    ReplyDelete
  100. You have not understood. Never did I say that the man will always be correct, nor did I say that all men necessarily have the woman's/family's best interest in mind. Certainly, I did not say that women should negate their thinking, or that they should be as automatons. I did say that he leads. That doesn't mean that he necessarily is right, or knows the best approach to things. There was an important reason for me to mention that 'I am married to a sophisticated woman. I think she is greater than me in many important ways. I try to be mechabda yoser megufy, but she is subordinate to me, and wouldn't have it any other way.' The purpose was first of all so that you should know that by no means do I look down at women in any of the ways you mentioned, and second of all to say this system works well. But it needs to be well understood and correctly implemented, and I am still learning to improve it, and hope to do so as long as we live.

    You might ask why should he always lead, since she might know better. The answer is that this is the correct order of things, and the correct role for each, in order for both people to grow together as one in the best way possible. It isn't the difference in knowledge or wisdom between the members of the couple, but rather that nature of the genders, which renders this the best way for them to flourish. When she knows better, which I know that my wife often does, it is the job of the husband to take her opinion very seriously before he decides. But he is to decide. If he doesn't realize that he needs to respect her wisdom, then he has a lot of growing to do in order to make his marriage good.

    In a good marriage, the husband leads, while he treats his wife with more respect than he treats himself. The woman wants nothing more than to be led by him and to follow him. This is quite an adjustment for people to make it work well, but it is the right way, and it is the way to aspire to, and to work towards achieving.

    ReplyDelete
  101. He never really answers your original question, does he?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Let me rephrase from a different vantage point. My understanding is that a woman wants to be swept off her feet. That means she wants to be respected and honored, carried and cared for, held and supported. Dos she not? That means she wants him to be the mashpia and herself to be the mekabel. That means that the ideal marriage is one where he leads by endowing her with his kindness and his careful and caring leadership, and she throws herself under this leadership. A man who makes his wife really happy, is the man who does the above for her. This makes her feel like she is being held and taken care of. This is true romance. Am I beginning to make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Might be true for some by I dont think most women want such a relationship

    ReplyDelete
  104. We are not talking about oppressing but rather being in a subordinate position nor is there an obligation to be controlled
    Women still suffer in pregnancy childbirth
    Men still need to exert themselves to earn a living
    In other words it is describing a predisposition
    No problem trying to make life easier or less painful

    ReplyDelete
  105. Harry, I fully comprehend what you are saying. Fully. You are also using a lot of generalizations and assumptions about both men and women and no specifics. I am curious to what it looks like in practice and what you mean by 'make decisions' specifically - ordering dinner? where to live? what to wear? what schools? IMO a good marriage is a couple who discusses decisions that affect them and come to a conclusion together- where one really really feels strongly in the opposite direction, they need to talk it out and maybe speak to someone. I simply cannot understand the general terms you are using in a daily situation because it sounds like you are saying, "If the man says we go here, we go here and the woman is pleased as punch to follow him wherever he leads" which doesn't exist anywhere except in manipulative relationships where she is not given a voice. If a wife feels every strongly about something, over ruling her may get you what you want at that moment, but it won't get you a better relationship. And this: "The woman wants nothing more than to be led by him and to follow him." You are not a woman, so I'll let you in on the secret, we want partners and friends to navigate life with, not to be led through life.

    ReplyDelete
  106. No, you are not. You stated earlier that "the role of the husband is to decide what's best." That has nothing to do with your (dubious) assertion that "a woman wants to be swept off her feet."

    ReplyDelete
  107. Shosh316 while I basically agree with your comment - but there are some women who want to be told what to do and want to leave the final decision to the husband.

    The issue is really if the husband feels he is entitled to be the BOSS and the wife views marriage as a partnership - how to deal with it. I dealt with such a case where the wife had battled the husband for years - because after all she knew she was right - and she was because he was immature and clueless about the world. I told her she had a choice - either divorce or surrender. She surrendered. Other women were go for divorce. The problem as we all know is if she wants a divorce and the husband see the marriage as good - just needs some fine tuning

    ReplyDelete
  108. Politically IncorrectDecember 9, 2016 at 10:15 AM

    You don't want to actively hide reality, only passively? Is this a didn't of 'tiltul min hatzed'? Or maybe 'kli shainy'?....But honestly, The first thing that came to my mind, was Balak's argument: "[all right....,] if you don't want to curse them, at least don't bless them"......as if there is a choice. ....

    ReplyDelete
  109. Politically IncorrectDecember 9, 2016 at 10:24 AM

    C'mon, the sweeper is the leader! ...

    ReplyDelete
  110. Beautifully said. How true. Rabbi Doniel has a PhD in Psychology, provides marriage counseling for couples and knows exactly what goes on. Having a back seat driver creates chaos. Only one can be President next to a Vice President, and that was the intention of Hashem, period!

    ReplyDelete
  111. Thank you for your comment and thnk you for asking me to clarify. First I will begin with your last statement "You are not a woman etc" If you noticed, I wrote about this "My understnding is..." with which I meant to say that it is my understanding but not that it is absolutely so. The reason for this is that I am not a woman, and also even a woman can't necessarily speak for all woman. So you are right. But still I said it, because it is my job to do my best to understand the needs of my woman in order to fulfill them. So this is my understanding at this time about my woman in particular and my feeling that it is basically like that for women in general. I want to answer your specific questions, but as today is Erev Shabbos, time doesn't allow it, so I hope to respond on Sunday.

    ReplyDelete
  112. In other words, if someone looks unflattering, you make it your business to go and let him know this fact, or do you wisely keep your mouth shut unless he asks your opinion? not everything that enters your mind, even if true, must be broadcast for everyone to hear!

    ReplyDelete
  113. Look at the Torah Temimah in Berashis on the Pasuk Veho Yimshal Bach as to why women pierce their ears

    ReplyDelete
  114. Politically IncorrectDecember 11, 2016 at 2:32 AM

    You ended your last comment: "There is nothing to be gained, only lost."

    Truthfully, it is a very relevant issue that seems to be pushed under the rug, since it is politically incorrect. ...

    ReplyDelete
  115. these comments do not load in an orderly fashion and I don't see them. You are constantly redefining your words and intentions. I still don't know how this looks in practice- A few examples of 'my wife might be right but I still lead' would help. I can't imagine a situation where I thought my husbands decision would be detrimental to our kids and I would allow him to override my concerns. I also can't imagine a marriage where he insisted I take his lead even if he thought I was right because 'thats the natural order of things' thank God Im married to a man who doesn't need to be 'right'

    ReplyDelete
  116. He doesn't need you to takje his lead, you need to. And it's not that he needs to be right. See my other comment that's on it's way.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Doesen't reb moshe say in a teshuva against feminists who wanted to wear tefillin, that women are actually more spiritual than men so they don't need mizvos aseeh shel hazman gromoh - since they're naturally closer to hashem?

    I always thought that the statement was very stange, and assumed that it was just a dichuai bealma (just a way of pushing away, but actually halachically illogical) in order to get the feminist women to stop their heretical agenda.

    I assume that reb moshe wanted to push them away at all costs, even to print a shtus (absurdity) to make them feel good about themselves, to get them to stop.

    Am I right?

    ReplyDelete
  118. no. In Igros Moshe O.C 4:49 which says women should not wear tefilin he makes now statement that women are more spiritual then men

    bottom line you premise is wrong and so your conclusion that you draw from your mistake are not correct

    ReplyDelete
  119. Politically IncorrectDecember 12, 2016 at 3:49 AM

    Maybe, it's not that they are more spiritual, just that they are lesser balay teivah....

    ReplyDelete
  120. Politically IncorrectDecember 12, 2016 at 3:51 AM

    Relevant in identifying our distinctive roles, primarily therole of delegating. ..

    ReplyDelete
  121. Politically IncorrectDecember 12, 2016 at 4:01 AM

    We presume that it means that it should be used....I mean, in actuality. ...do you have any indication that not? Well okay, I might concede that you first show the rod, but if that doesn't help? Then as the slogan goes: "by all means necessary"....

    If I may add, I have a lawyer, a Roman Catholic, who conceded to me that the methods of discipline that have been outlawed, have notdeveloped a more moral generation. ..

    ReplyDelete
  122. are you claiming Chazal said such a thing? - which they didn't - or are you claiming this from your personal experience?

    ReplyDelete
  123. it is an interesting and important question - what impact has the elimination of corporal punishment had on society and the nature of people?

    ReplyDelete
  124. Politically IncorrectDecember 12, 2016 at 11:13 AM

    Off the cuff, I might make such a claim from Kesuvos 4 which discusses mourning during Sheva Brochos. The stringency of yichud is definitely greater for the groom than the bride due to the male's greater lust....actually I think it is evident all over. ..if I may say....

    ReplyDelete
  125. nope It is clear that because of her greater lust that her husband is able to control her - according to the Torah
    Sotah (21b): A woman prefers a minimal material existence with sexual indulgence than a maximal material existence with sexual deprivation.

    Rashi (Bereishis 3:16): And your desire will be to your husband - for sexual relations and as a consequence He will rule over you - everything will come from him and not from you.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Politically IncorrectDecember 12, 2016 at 2:56 PM

    I always understood that the decree that a woman desire her husband is relevant to physical, financial and emotional security. ....

    Sotah I still need to check. .

    What do you do with many other things such as the plethora of Ma'amorai Chazal that underline the importance of the need for a woman to dress attractively for her husband? What do you do with many seforim which stress shmiras ainayim by men, but for women, they stress modesty? Why are men not allowed to watch women dance, while women may? Such as chasunos or on Simchas Torah? Why can a woman b'dieved to a taharah on a man, while a man can't even do such for a woman? And how did you answer me on the Gemara Kesuvos that I presented??

    ReplyDelete
  127. Politically IncorrectDecember 12, 2016 at 3:04 PM

    My take: permissiveness, or if you will, unbridled permissiveness. I might also add no feeling of responsibility for one's actions. ..

    ReplyDelete
  128. a man needs to be attracted to his wife and not other women - what is the question?
    The issue with men is zera l'vatala

    ReplyDelete
  129. Corporal punishment by parents is legal all 50 states.

    ReplyDelete
  130. It's called *Ma'asseh yodeho leba'alah*, written in stone! He can also say, *Tzei ma'asseh yodayich limzonosayich*. He cannot say, *asseh imi, ve'eini zonoch*, chad vecholok. The Mishnah also lists what is the criteria when he can request her to work. Also, please don't forget, that it is Hashem that gave the Torah and ordered for us all to keep, and not the other way around. You cannot cherry pick what you like and leave what you don't. It is a package deal, and as they say, either my way or the Highway. You then also have the Reforms etc. that revise things as if a piece of dough, to which Hashem says, Mi bikesh zos miyedchem remos chatzeroy. Veze kol haTorah kula al regel achas, veidach zil ugmor, outside of Tiflus.

    ReplyDelete
  131. It is not exactly a win win for her. There is also what is called *Adafa* = change of what's left from her earnings after her own feed cost. It is not clear cut - for her to keep the change.

    ReplyDelete
  132. The teshuva seems to be against the femminists that want to take on the mitzvos that a man traditionally does, I.E tefillin and the like. He does not seem to say that women are subservient to men, which implies that their role is to be a man's servant, slave, or the like. Yes, they do need to know their role and be proud of it, but so does each one of us; men, women and children.all are equally important in the future of Kllal Yisroel, and if any of them abrogate their role, it will be a sad future for the entire Jewish people.

    ReplyDelete
  133. So here you have your source... regarding el ishech tehi teshukatech we hu imshol bo.

    Was it intellectual dishonesty will that you ignored it before?

    ReplyDelete
  134. "And amongst the obligations between a man and his wife there is the obligation that a man needs to honor and respect her and she needs to honor and respect him - without any differential. There were many women who were prophetesses and they had the full status of prophet as that found amongst the men. Furthermore in many things - whether in the Bible or the words of our Sages - they were praised more than the men. There is no degradation of the honor of women." R. Moshe Feinstein

    ReplyDelete
  135. Just so that the men should feel good about themselves. The women should feel good about themselves as well in enabling the husbands to serve Hashem. If you ever attend Shabbos droshes for women by women you will hear all the medroshim and divrei chaza"l how gevaldig important being a woman is, why? Just to make them feel good about themselves regardless of having a Tzelem Elokim or not. On Simchat Torah, observe the women how happy they are watching the dancing with the Torah, they even bring the small kids along. Just to make them also feel good, you can buy today Torah dollies, and even the Reform have their tubby rofl dollies. Why not? Lamah nigora? And all this even without having a BeTzelem. All are welcome. Many Nashim Tzidkoniyos make lekavod Yom Tov delicious, scrumptous Craplich stuffed with cheese, and all this counts, ach yechaven libah leshamayim. Yom Tov is chetzi lachem, vechetzyo laShem, and who do you think bakes the Challah and all the wonderful goodies and mmmm...... gute zachen for the Shabbos meal for the family to enjoy, none other then the chashuve women, a Tradition going back all the way to Bobbe Soreh. If not for the nashim Tzidkoniyos, the world would have never been the same. See the Gemara, Nashim bemay kozachyan. You don't have to grow a beard to be in it. Tzivos HaShem welcomes equally all segments of the military.
    Even amongst the men, not everybody is a mar bar rav Ashi, but uber hudert un tzvantzig, they don't ask you how many daf yomi you learnt, just plain vanilla, osakto baTorah? Look at the poster of, Ein moinim es hadafim ele es hashaos. The men also seek out to serve Talmidei Chachamim to be makyem, vehevei misabek bafar raglom, nothing to shamed about. If the girls are taught when they are yet small, they wouldn't have any problems with it when they grow up. If you are unhappy with your lot, this not the right place to complain about. Lech lebore sheosani kirtzono.

    ReplyDelete
  136. That's in the Rashi with this passuk, meanwhile you found it, since you quoted it yourself.
    Was this statement here intellectual dishonesty or did you genuinely not know the rashi?

    ReplyDelete
  137. RDE, do you maintain that this is the correct perspective for us to have today? If not, why do we not have to listen to all these sources? (Apologies if this has been addressed already, I have not read all 144 comments on this post.)

    ReplyDelete
  138. A very good question and one which needs to be addressed to rabbinic leadership. The sources I cited are all mainstream sources and thus can be assumed to be presenting mainstream ideas. It is always important to learn main stream sources. However on a practical level - the question is whether it is desirable to apply them to present day society.

    The issue is also whether these sources were describing the ideal which might need to be modified in our times or whether they were describing what was best for their time but they would agree that today things should be done differently. As I said - ask your rabbinic leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Judaism seems to say clearly that it is best for a couple to follow the decisions of the wiser person within the couple. Could vary according to topics.
    I do not think that the torah or halacha says: every stupidity a husband wants the wife has to do.
    What about a situation where the husband wants his wife to reduce religious practice, e.g. go from hareidi to modern orthodox when the marriage was concluded under the assumption that the couple will be hareidi. Does she have to follow?
    Same goes for change of profession: if a change of profession implies reduction of onah, the husband has to ask for his wife's permission, that's even in the kitzur shulchan aruch.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Why would you doubt that this is the correct perspective for us today (especially if there are no other sources disagreeing with the cited sources)?

    ReplyDelete
  141. I am asking what YOUR perspective is.

    ReplyDelete
  142. At this stage I am still gathering information

    ReplyDelete
  143. Don't know where you got this idea?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Different times call for different applications of halacha. The sources clearly say - and this is just one example - that one should not take money for teaching Torah. Now it's not even an issue that people should do that. We live in a different reality today then back then. There are plenty of cases in which we are noheg differently than the sources seem to indicate.

    ReplyDelete
  145. What indicates to you that there is any reason NOT to follow these sources?

    ReplyDelete
  146. the issue is what is the ideal and what is an necessary adjustment to a particular situation

    ReplyDelete
  147. there are many women today who would not agree or would do so with resentment. At the same time the maturity level of men seems to be lower than that of the women. It is hard to be subordinate to someone that you don't feel knows more than you.

    As I noted before that the Seiridei Aish when he came to Germany from Eastern Europe discovered that the women did not want to hear that they were subordinate and he went out of his way to find a heter for mixed singing because of that.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Nevertheless, you can't simply overturn halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Have you provided the citation to the Seridei Aish? What does he day - does he disagree with all the centuries of settled halacha on this issue?

    ReplyDelete
  150. Many women today would also not agree to follow the halachas on tznius or would do so with resentment. Does that permit disregarding those halachas?

    (The same point could be made on a number of other issues, for both men and women.)

    ReplyDelete
  151. According to this logic we could overturn almost any halachas.

    ReplyDelete
  152. there are halachos which are required and it is a sin if ignored. There is conduct which is desirable but does not constitute a sin if not done. Certain things like Torah study are not sinful for women and can be changed depending on the needs of the time.
    There are standards of modesty which might not be sinful but should only be followed in certain circumstances
    Each issue needs to be analyzed separately

    ReplyDelete
  153. no I didn't provide the citation - I assume you can find it with a google search

    ReplyDelete
  154. What is the topic the Seridei Aish discusses in the one you're referencing?

    ReplyDelete
  155. I am in agreement. Unfortunately there is no easy answer to what should be changed to address modern circumstances and what should not. Every reader of this blog would be modeh that there are some things in Jewish practice that have changed. How we make those decisions is not pashut.

    ReplyDelete
  156. practical example in my surroundings...

    ReplyDelete
  157. Right. Which is why some daas is called for. There have clearly been changes to religious practice in the Torah-observant world over the generations. The question is, what do we change and when? Nobody is suggesting we get rid of shabbos. But the correct relationship between man and wife is not necessarily the same kind of immutable law.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Politically IncorrectJanuary 11, 2017 at 3:19 AM

    Maskim, which by the way, I got arrested for...

    ReplyDelete
  159. You got arrested for disciplining your child? What was the context of why you are arrested? (I would tend to think the police don't typically arrest parents for spanking their child.)

    ReplyDelete
  160. Politically IncorrectJune 2, 2017 at 8:11 PM

    The detective told me if it leaves a mark, it's a problem. I was wondering how am I to know if it leaves a mark....(!!)

    ReplyDelete
  161. Who called the police?

    ReplyDelete

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