Tuesday, August 22, 2023

Shmuel in his generation is like Yiftach in his generation

audio link


I am going to discuss who Yiftach was - as understood by Chazal  -and why this provides us with a lesson in how to properly understand rabbinic leadership through history. In particular I would like to discuss how this helps us to understand how it is possible that R Shmuel Kaminetsky - despite being a gadol - has made some very serious mistakes in seeking to obtain an improper heter for a married woman to remarry without a Get. This has resulted in a couple presently committing adultery - and he is making no effort to correct this or the injustice he committed against Aharon Friedman her first husband.

It is typically understood that the message of Yiftach b'doro k'Shmuel b'doro (Rosh Hashanna 25b) is that even though Yiftach was not as great as Shmuel he still was the leader of the generation, a great talmid chachom and tzadik and a member of the Sanhedrin. It is believed that the leaders of every generation have ruach hakodesh and their views are Daas Torah and needed to be followed (Divrei Chaim, Mishneh Halachos). In short, it is understood to mean that the gedolim in each generation are great men - even though they might not be as great as previous generations - but what they say and do reflects G-d's will and they are basically infallible. 

All of the above is founded on an mistaken understanding of who Yiftach was - and consequently the comparison to Shmuel is incorrect. He is presented in various seforim (Machzor Vitri) as a major talmid chachom, leader of the Sanhedrin, a tzadik and pious man. Unfortunately that view is contrary to the view of Chazal (Taanis 4a) and is found primarily in some of the Rishonim. In fact what  Chazal say the expression of Yiftach b'doro means is that one is to treat the major rabbinic figures with kavod (Rashi Devarim 19:17) - even they are not as great as previous generations - and even though they are not great scholars. 

As a starting point, I want to present an important statement by Rav Dessler which explains why there are disparities between the explicit statement of Chazal and explanations of the same issue by Rishonim.
Michtav M'Eliahyu (4:355). It is important however to distinguish between those explanations which are basically interpretations of the verses and those of Chazal which are the actual meaning of the verses. Given this clear distinction it is puzzling why many Rishonim strive to follow a different understanding than the true explanation given by our Sages? We find such tendencies in the commentary of the Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and other Rishonim. What is the purpose of offering explanations which differ from the definitive true ones? I think the answer is that they offer these alternative explanations for the sake of confused people (i.e., they are apologetics). In other words these Rishonim want to show that there are many different aspects even in the simple understanding of the verses and that it is permissible for a person to create new interpretations according to what makes sense to him. (Of course, any alternative explanations which contradict foundation principles of faith are prohibited)... Such an approach is similar to that of the Rambam who wrote so much for the confused. We see this from the fact that many difficulties that exist in what he wrote could have been explained in a much clearer fashion. However, since he was addressing confused people he provided alternative explanations which they could accept - as long as it didn't contradict the Halacha).
In sum, Chazal's statements are true. Contrary statements are not the full truth but are the best that some readers will be able to accept. The Rishonim felt it was better to give a partially true or relatively true statement that would be believed - than to make statements that would be rejected. A similar statement is found in the Rambam about saying less than the full truth in order to maximize the understanding of ignorant people.
Moreh Nevuchim (Introduction). The seventh reason why an author seems to contradict himself occurs when discussing very deep and profound issues. It is necessary to conceal some aspects of the information and to reveal some. In order to accomplish this concealment it might be necessary in one place to utilize one set of principles and in another context it might be necessary to utilize a different set of fundamental principles - though the principles contradict each other. Obviously, the author should write in such a way that the ignorant masses are totally unaware of the internal contradiction. . 
Our Sages are conveying an important message about our relationship with religious and community leaders in their discussions about the major events in the life of Yiftach - who is one of the Judges. Starting from the beginning, his mother was a prostitute. As a result he was unjustly driven away by his father's other sons to prevent him from having his rightful part of the inheritance from his father. He organized a gang of bums - which Chazal teach us mean that birds of a feather flock to together - and lived the life of one rejected by society. That continued until the Jewish nation was threatened by an outside enemy and it was realized that only the military prowess of the bum Yiftach would save them from being conquered. He was offered the position of leadership of the Nation as an enticement to defend the Nation and he was successful and ruled for 6 years. Amongst his other accomplishments he killed 42,000 of his fellow Jews and sacrificed his daughter as a korbon olah. It is the latter which is out concern.

Yiftach took an oath that if he was successful in battle he would offer as a sacrifice whatever came out first to greet him when he return home. His daughter was the first to greet him. It is absolutely clear with no dissent - that one can not offer a human being as a sacrifice and that his oath was totally worthless. There is a discussion in Bereishis Rabbah (60) as to whether he needed to give the monetary equivalent of the sacrifice. But no one holds that the oath obligated him or even gave him the right to kill his daughter.

So why did he do it? Our Sages say it was because he was ignorant (Medrash Tanchuma, Taanis 4a). In fact Rashi (Taanis 4a) mentions that he became dismembered and the parts buried in different cities -  as punishment for the horrific and ignorant thing that he did.

More important is the question why no one stopped him. Our Sages mentioned that Yiftach should have gone to Pinchus and be told that there was no basis for the oath. But he didn't go because after all he was the leader of the Jewish people. For this prideful act he was punished. (In fact Seder Olam brings that this horrible error required that R Chanina ben Tradyon be burnt to death as atonement). More relevant is the question of why Pinchus (the great man who was a zealot concerned with stopping wrong - even killing wrong doers even though he was endangering his life). Some say that Pinchus is Eliyahu - and he is the foundation of the Mesora since he lived for many years. Given the character of Pinchus - why didn't he stop Yiftach? Again it seems to have been a the result of misplaced pride. He was after all the greatest talmid chachom and the baal mesorah - and therefore Yiftach needed to come to him for guidance. Our Sages say that Pinchus was punished by losing the Divine Spirit. G-d was severely displeased with him.

Thus the meaning of Yiftach in his generation is like Shmuel in his generation is that the leader of our community is not necessarily a great man - nonetheless he is to be respected because of his office. But we also see that not only can inferior leaders such as Yiftach make great errors -but also great leaders such as Pinchas also can err - for such mundane reasons as pride in being a leader.

In summary, We learn from Yiftach and his comparison to Shmuel that while a person who has an exalted position must be respected for that position - he is not infallible and that he can make serious mistakes. A leader such as Yiftach needs to be criticized when he does some wrong - such as sacrificing his daughter in the name of piety. As Daas Sofrim notes, he was an ignoramous who became pious - and we know from Avos that an ignoramous can not be truly pious. But we also see from Tanach that Pinchus also made an incredible error due to his pride of being a great leader. Pinchus also needed to be criticized by those inferior to him. Because no one spoke up Yiftach's daughter suffered a horrible death. 

We as as members of the holy Jewish people have to always remember that all Jews are bound into a collective entity. All Jews are responsible for what all other Jews do. We can not use the excuse that the wrong doer is a great man - a gadol - and who are we to criticize him when he makes a serious mistake. If we don't speak up, we will all suffer - chas v'shalom - from the sins done by our leaders.

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky is responsible for getting Rav Greenblatt to give Tamar Esptein a worthless heter to remarrry without a Get. Rav Kaminetsky refuses to accept responsibility for his actions and insists that it is entirely Rav Greenblatt's responsibility to undo this pervision of Torah and halacha. He refuses to tell the adulterous couple to separate. He refuses to apologize for insulting and shaming Aharon Friedman in his misguided efforts to help Tamar Epstein. 

Consequently it is our responsibility as members of the Jewish people to correct the damage. We can not use the excuse that this issue is only for gedolim. We can not use the inaction and silence of our leaders to allow injustice and corruption. We need to learn from what happened with Yiftach and Pinchus - that one who does not act to correct wrong - causes suffering to others and will he/she will suffer as punishment..

Rav Chaim Malinowitz: Rav Feldman is mistakenly transforming this outrage against the Torah into a mere dispute of poskim

Guest Post
first published two years ago

this is relevant to rav Shmuels claim that there is a machlokes haposkim if Tamar can remarry without a Get


  
The tragedy of Rav Feldman's letter , besides the emotional reference of some unspecified behavior by unspecified people being worse than being mattir an eishess ish to remarry without a Get (!) , is, in my opinion, the language in the letter relegating what has occurred to - "I respectfully disagree". The damage done by such a weak description is incalculable.

We now have a machlokess what berachah to make on rice cakes ; a machlokess about the shiur of a kezayis; and a machlokess about allowing an eishess ish to remarry without a Get based on a hired person (hired by one party) writing a report about another party's mental health without ever meeting that second party and then using that report to shop around till someone is found who will pasken that no one but no one would ever deign to live with such a person (despite the first party actually having done so for a significant period of time) and who will actually allow remarriage without a Get;  and this without a proper investigation that this "condition" actually existed at the time of the kiddushin!; and  all this without the presence or knowledge of the second party (who certainly needs to be heard from by  a Bais Din as to what he has to say to the claim of mekach to'us (may we assume that it is no worse than if I sold you a tape recorder and you claim mekach to'us?) ; and  with everyone subsequently denying that they were mattir (wasn't me, it was him; no, it wasn't me, it was him; no, no,  it wasn't me, it was him)

And this, I now read, is simply a disagreement between Poskim!

Talking about "worse"-- the cover-up is worse than the crime.


Rav Chaim Zev Malinowitz

Monday, August 21, 2023

Yeshiva University launches master’s program for Christian students

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/yeshiva-university-launches-masters-program-for-christian-students/

The new program is a joint initiative of YU and the Philos Project, an organization that says it “seeks to promote positive Christian engagement in the Near East.” Philos is a partner of Passages — a Birthright-style program that brings young Christians on group tours of Israel — and it also organizes Christians to demonstrate against antisemitism.

Chasam Sofer: Chiddushim used as a way to remember the gemora and not to understand it

Found an interesting comment of the Chasam Sofer (Shabbos 140b/Chullin 7a) regarding the use and abuse of chiddushim and sevaros.

חתם סופר (שבת קמ): ועל דרך הלצה, ע"פ מה שנראה לי שנולד לן זה מנהג לחדש חידושים יותר מדאי וכל אחד בונה במה לעצמו זה בכה וזה בכה, אפשר לחפש לן זכות שגזרו כן גאוני קדמונינו ז"ל שראו שכחה שגוברת בעו"ה בעולם וא"א לאוקמא גירסא אכן ע"י החידושים בכל דף ועמוד עי"ז זוכר הכל ומילתא דתמיה מידכר דכירא והנסיון מעיד לנו ע"ז ויודע אני בעצמי, וא"כ אף אם החידוש אינו נכון כל כך מ"מ מועיל לשכחה כנ"ל. ואפשר שזהו פי' הש"ס אנן כאצבע בבירא לשכחה, ומוסיף אידך ואנן כאצבע בקירא לסברא, שלכאורה אין זה מענין הראשון. אכן לפי הנ"ל א"ש שבתחלה היה כאצבע בבירא לשכחה מ"מ היה אפשר להועיל ע"י חידושים אבל עכשיו אנן כאצבע בקירא לסברא ג"כ ומה לעשות עוד. וידוע ששמן זית מחזיר תלמודו של עי"ן שנים כמבואר סוף הוריות, ע"ש, הא קאמר האי בר בי רב דלית ליה מישחא היינו זכרון הנקרא ע"ש שמן זית נימשי במים דחריצי בתורת החריצים הידועים בזה"ז חרוץ ושנון ודו"ק:

חתם סופר (חולין ז.): ופה מצאתי מקום להרחיב הדבור מה שאלצני הנה השל"ה וכל גדולי ישראל צווחי' כי כרוכי' על החילוקים הנוהגים בבעלי ישיבה ואומרים שהם מבלי עולם. והנה דבר זה נתפשט בתפוצות ישראל מאוד מאוד וכל רואיו ומביניו יכירו כי לכאורה שוא והבל הוא. וחלילה לנו לחשוב כן על צדיקים וטובים קדמונינו שהנחילו לנו ירחי שוא ומשאות מדיחים איך לא סקלום אנשי דורם אז כשהתחיל לקלקל. ואם תאמר הי' מה שהי'. אתה נותן מקום למינים לרדות דלמא גם תפילין וכיוצא בו התחיל בדור מן הדורות ולפנים לא הי'. חלילה לחשוב. אבל אומר אני החילוקים דרכם בקודש וממעיין הקודש יצאו אלא שנתקלקל באורך הזמן. וטרם כל נחקור על שם זה חילוק מה שמו מה תאמר אבל הוה יודע דעיקר שמוש התלמידים אצל רבם הוא לדמות מילתא למילתא. וז"ל הרא"ש הובא בב"י בבד"ה בי"ד סי' רמ"ב וי"ל דעכשיו נמי אין כל מעשה בא בגמ' אלא שמדמה מילתא למילתא ואיכא למיחש שמדמה מה דלא דמי עכ"ל שם. ועל זה נהגו כשאדם מחדש דבר אומרים בלשון אשכנז גלייך או אום גלייך פי' דומה או אינו דומה שהדמיון עולה יפה או אינו עולה יפה. והיות הסברות עמוקות ודקות בחוט השערה לחלק בין זה לזה ועי"ז יתרצו כמה קושי' שיודע לחלק ביניהם מה שהי' בעיני התלמידים דומין זה לזה יבוא רבו וחקרו שאין זה דומה ומורה להתלמידים הסדק שבין זה לזה וזה הוא חילוק שהי' רב מראה לתלמידים החילוק וההפרש בין הסברות שהי' נראה להם במושכל הראשון שהם דומים זה לזה ומזה ילמדו דרך האמת בהוראה. ואמנם בעו"ה נתקלקלו הדורות ואדרבא החליפו הנ"ל בפלפולים חריפים ומשוננים ואינם משגיחים אם דומה או לא רק שיהי' חריף וחדוד או לשיטתו אעפ"י שאם יעיין שפיר אין זה שיטתו שהחילוק רב ביניהם. עד שבעלי החריפים האלו הם המורים בחריפותם. והי לך לשון הריב"ש סי' רע"א אבל אין צריך לידע כל הוית התוספת וגליוניהם ולמירמי דוקלי ולזקוף להו. וכמה חכמים ראינו בעינינו מפולפלים וחריפים בהוית דמעיילי פילא בקופא דמחטא ועל כל קוץ וקוץ אומרים תילי תילים קושיות ותירוצים ולפום חורפא לא סלקא להו שמעתתא אליבא דהלכתא ואומרים על אסור מותר ועל מותר אסור עכ"ל הריב"ש שם:


והנה אחז"ל לעולם יעשה אדם עצמו כשור לעול וכחמור למשאוי בדברי תורה והענין כשור לרדיא המשדד עמקים וכרוב ותני ומעיין ודולה מים מבארות עמקים והוא החריפות. ואחר שברר שמועותיו וטחן וברר לסולת סולת נקי' יהי' כחמור למשא לישא אלומותיו כחמור נושא ספרים. ואם זה השור יחרוש וישדד במישור. אח"כ בעליו יבצור ויזמור. וישאהו על גביו כחמור. אך מאוד צריך להזהר שבין החרישה והאסיפה יברור ויזרה ברחת ומזרה אבל לא תחרוש בשור ובחמור יחדיו. ה' יודע כי כעין האמור למעלה הבנתי מקיצורי דברים ורמיזותן של רבותי הקדושים זצ"ל אלא הם שמו מחסום לפיהם ולא גילו אלא ברמז לצנועי תלמידהם. ואני עני וכואב מקום הניחו לי להתגדר בו וה' הטוב יכפר בעדי:

The relationship between G-d and the Jews is like a husband to his wife

Jews are like G-d's bride

Rashi (Bamidbar (7:1): It is written as kalla (bride). On the day that the Mishkan (Tabernacle) was erected the Jews were like a bride entering the chupah

Rashi (Devarim 33:2): G d went out from Sinai — G d went out to meet the Jews when they came to camp at Mt. Sinai — as a groom coming to meet his bride…

Taanis (4:8): On the day of his wedding and the day of the rejoicing of his heart (Shir HaShirim 3:11). “The day of his wedding” is referring to the giving of the Torah at Sinai.

Rashi (Shir HaShirim 3:11): On the day of his wedding – This is referring to the giving the Torah at Sinai when they crowned G d as their king and they accepted His authority.

Hoshea (2:20-22): 20. And in that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the birds of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them lie down safely. 21. And I will betroth you to me for ever; I will betroth you to me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in grace, and in mercies. 22. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord.

Ramban (Shemos 35:1): And Moshe assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel — G d had become reconciled with them and had given Moshe the Second Tablets and made a new covenant that He would go in their midst. Thus He returned to the previous relationship with them and to the love of their “wedding.” It was thus obvious that His Presence would be in their midst just as He had commanded him at first as He said (Shemos 25:8) , “Let them make Me a Tabernacle that I may dwell amongst them.” Therefore Moshe now commanded the people all that he had been commanded the first time.

Maharal (Vayikra 24:10): As long as the Jews were at Mt. Sinai, G d did not want Mekosheis to die because He did not want them to be involved in death. That is because the time that they remained at Sinai after they had received the Torah was a time of rejoicing (simcha). This is similar to a man who gets married. Devarim (24:5) says that a groom should rejoice with his bride for a period of a year. G d had taken the Jewish people to Himself at Sinai in a manner which was similar to a groom marrying a woman. The halacha is that a wedding takes precedence over a funeral. Therefore it is understandable why G d did not want them to be involved during this period with the execution of Mekosheis. Even though Mishlei 11:10) notes that the destruction of the wicked is a positive thing — nevertheless it is not joyful. Consequently during this period of a year, G d did not want to reduce the joy by having them involved in someone’s execution.

Holy of Holies in the Temple is called the Bedroom

Chomas Anon (Melachim II 11:20): The bedroom - In the Temple in the courtyard there was a place where the Cohanim and Leviim slept. But a more correct explanation is that it is referring to the Holy of Holies which was definitely protected and no one saw it.

Rashi (Melachim II 11:20): The bedroom – This is referring to the Holy of Holies… It is called the bedroom based on Shir HaShirim 1:13), My beloved is to me a bundle of myrrh, that lies between my breasts…

Rashi (Shir HaShirim 1:16):…The Mishkan (Tabernacle) is called bed as it says "Behold it is the bed of Shlomo (Shir HaShirm 3:7). Similarly the Temple is called bed as it says about Yoash (Divrei HaYamim 2:25), In the bedroom which was in the house of G-d because they were fruitful and muliplied the Jews

Shir HaShirim Rabbah (1:68): Also our couch is leafy - This is referring the Temple as it says, "With his nurse in the bedroom" (Melachim II 11:2). What is meant by the "bedroom"? R. Eleazar and R. Shmuel bar Nachman gave different explanations. R. Eleazar said it means in the side-chambers. R. Shmuel bar Nachman said it means the upper champers….Another explanation for Also our couch is leafy. R' Yehuda son of R. Shimon: It is like a king who went out in the desert and they brought him a short bed which he found to be uncomfortable and cramped for his limbs. When he got to the city they brought him a longer bed so he was able to stretch out and loosen his limbs. In such a manner until the Temple was built, the Shechina was confined between the two staves of the Ark. However when the Temple was built the staves were enlarged (Melachim I 8:2).

Prayer is like intercourse

Baal Shem Tov (Tzavaas Ribash #68): - Prayer is a form of intercourse with the Shekhinah and just as in the beginning of intercourse one moves one's body, so it is necessary to move one's body at first in prayer, but afterward one can stand still without any movement when one unites with the Shekhinah. The power of his movement causes a great arousal, for it cause him to think: "Why am I moving myself?" [And he answers himself:] "Because perhaps the Shekhinah is actually standing in front of me." And from this great power, he comes to a great passion."

Keser Shem Tov (page 4a #16): From the Besht: From my flesh I shall see God (Job 19:26).113 Just as you cannot sire [a child] in physical copulation unless your organ is "alive" and [you are filled with desire and joy, so it is with spiritual coupling, that is, with regard to the words of Torah and prayer: when it is done with a live organ, in joy and pleasure, then you can be fecund.

Rabbi Pinhas of Koretz(Likkutim Yekarim): Prayer is [an act of] coupling with the Shekhinah.!" and just as there is shaking at the beginning of copulation, so must you shake at the beginning of prayer. Afterwards you can continue standing without any motion, and remain attached to the Shekhinah in great devekut .

Idolatry is like adultery



Hosheah(2:3-9): 3. Say to your brothers, My people, (Ammi); and to your sisters, Pity, (Ruhama).4. Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, nor am I her husband; let her therefore put away her harlotry away from of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;5. Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst.6. And I will not have mercy upon her children; for they are the children of harlotry.7. For their mother has played the harlot; she who conceived them has done shamefully; for she said, I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.8. Therefore, behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and make a wall against her, that she shall not find her paths.9. And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but she shall not find them; then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then it was better for me than now.

Pesachim (87b): After two sons and one daughter were born to Hoshea, G d said to him, Didn’t you learn from your teacher Moshe? Because after I spoke with him – he separated from his wife – and you should have separated from your wife. Hoshea responded, Master of the Universe. I have children by her and I can neither expel her nor divorce her. G d to him, “If you, whose wife is a prostitute and your children are those of harlotry and therefore you don’t know whether they are yours or someone else and yet you feel this way – then Israel who are My children and the children of My tried ones, the children of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov (one of 4 possessions that I have acquired in this world, Torah...Heaven and Earth, the Temple, and Israel) and yet you say that I should exchange them for a different people!...


Chastising and education

Hosheah(2:3-9): 3. Say to your brothers, My people, (Ammi); and to your sisters, Pity, (Ruhama).4. Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, nor am I her husband; let her therefore put away her harlotry away from of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;5. Lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst.6. And I will not have mercy upon her children; for they are the children of harlotry.7. For their mother has played the harlot; she who conceived them has done shamefully; for she said, I will go after my lovers, who give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, my oil and my drink.8. Therefore, behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns, and make a wall against her, that she shall not find her paths.9. And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but she shall not find them; then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then it was better for me than now.

Rema (E.H. 154:3): And similarly a man who habitually angry and frequently sends his wife out of the house. In such a case he is forced to divorce her because since he sometimes doesn’t feed her and he does not fulfill his obligation to provide sexual relations – he is a rebel (mored) concerning both food and sex (Rashba 693). A man who hits his wife has committed a sin just as if he had hit any other Jew. If he habitually hits her, the court should punish him, ostracize him and to beat him with all types of force as well as to make him take an oath that he will not do it anymore. If he doesn’t obey the court – some say that he should be forced to divorce her. However this is only if he is first warned once or twice. That is because it is not normal for Jews to hit their wives – it is what the idolaters do. However this is only when he attacks her. However if she curses him without cause or ridicules his parents and he chastises her and she refuses to stop – some say that it is permitted to hit her while others says that even a bad wife can not be hit. The halacha is accord with the first opinion that she can be hit. If it is known who started the fight, the husband is not believed to say that she initiated. That is because all women are presumed to be righteous. Therefore observers need to be placed with them to see who is the cause of the problem. If she in fact cursed him without cause – she is to be divorced and not receive her kesuba. It seems to me that this is only if she habitually curses him without cause and only after she has been warned as we explained in 115. If she leaves his house and borrows money to eat – if she left because of constant beatings – he is obligated to pay for her expenses…

Bereishis Rabba (Buber Version 8:3): And G-d’s anger I will bear. This is comparable to a hero who is capable of immediately killing another man with a single blow. However when the hero enters into his own own home and hits his wife with a single blow – she withstands the blow. Her neighbors ask her about her great strength. “All the great athletes have died from a single blow – how many blows can you survive from him?” She replied, “My husband hits the others out of anger and therefore uses his full might. However for me he hits me according to my strength and therefore I can survive the blows.” Thus it is with G-d. He says that He doesn't hit the Jews the way He hits the generation of the Flood or the generation of the Dispersal or Sodom or the Egyptians or Sisro...But regarding the Jews who are the Children of Yaakov He will not destroy them....

Shemos Rabbah(31:10): Another explanation of IF THOU LEND MONEY TO ANY OF MY PEOPLE (XXII, 24). It is written, Refuse silver did men call them (Jer. VI, 30). When Israel were driven from Jerusalem, their enemies took them out in fetters, and the nations of the world remarked: ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, has no desire for this people, for it says, "Refuse silver did men call them."’3 Just as silver is first refined and then converted into a utensil, again refined and turned into a utensil, and so many times over,4 are destroyed, they are referred to as mashkonotheka (thy pledges). ‘It is not because,’ [says God], ‘I am in debt to the heathen nations that I have pledged My tabernacle to them, but it is your iniquities that have caused Me to hand over to them My sanctuary. Were this not the case, why was I then obliged to do this?1 Does it not say, Thus saith the Lord: Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, wherewith I have put her away? Or which of My creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities were ye sold, and for your transgressions was your mother put away  (Isa. L, 1).2 With Moses, too, did I make this condition concerning them; as it says, "If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor" (Ex. XXII, 24); but if you transgress these commands, I will hand over two pledges, as it says, If thou at all take thy neighbour's garment to pledge --habol tahbol "  (ib. 25).’3 Moses asked: ' Shall they remain in pledge for ever?’ God replied: ‘No, only Until the sun appears’ (ib.),4 that is, till the coming of the Messiah; for it says, But unto you that fear My name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in its wings (Mal.III, 20).

Tanhuma( Parashat Mishpatim: 11): [My Jewish LearningA parable to a king who beat his wife. Her guardian said to him: “If you want to divorce her, beat her until she dies. But if you plan to return to her, why are you so beating her so harshly?” He said to him: Even if my palace were to be destroyed, I would not divorce her Thus Jeremiah says: “If you want to divorce us, beat us until we die, unless you have utterly rejected us and are angry with us beyond measure" (Lamentations 5:22). "But if not, why have you struck us down so that there is no healing for us?" (Jeremiah 14:19). The Holy Blessed One responded to him: "Even if I destroy my world, I will not divorce Israel, as it says, “Thus says the Lord: If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth can be explored, then I will reject all the offspring of Israel because of all they have done, says the Lord”" (Jeremiah 31:36). "Rather, even so, I have set a condition with them, that if they sin, the Temple will provide surety for them, as it says, ‘I have placed my Tabernacle (mishkani) in their midst’" (Leviticus 26:11), [read this as] I have placed my surety (mashkoni).

Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 3:9): The braissa says that a slave whose term of servitude has ended because of Yovel and his master is urging him to leave but the former slave does not want to leave and the master hits him and makes bruises – the master is exempt from payment. The Mordechai (#35) as well as the Mahrich (Simon 3) say, ”This is relevant also to servants. And this is applicable if the servant is suspected of stealing and the employer wants him to leave before then end of the term of employment and surely it applies to anyone who has the reputation that he is a thief.” However it is not only in the case where the person is suspected of stealing which involves a financial loss. Even if there is no loss, it is permissible since a person can take judgment into his own hands (avid dina l’nafshei). The gemora which explains that the case is a servant who is a thief – that is only necessary according to R’ Yehuda. But according to R’ Nachman the braissa concerns a servant even if he is not causing a loss – the employer can force him to leave. It is just the typical case that a servant would not be forced to leave before the end of employment unless there was suspicion of stealing or other damage or loss. That is why the Mordechai says that the case involves suspicion of stealing…And even concerning any trespasser on his property - the trespasser can be forced to leave without requiring any other justification than he doesn’t want him there. If the trespasser refuses to leave until he is beaten – the owner is exempt from paying for damages. That is because a person is allowed to take justice into his own hands in order to save that which is his. Everyone is the sovereign of his own house and no one has the right to trespass against his will… From this gemora the Terumas HaDeshen (218) learns that it is permitted for a man to hit his wife when she curses her father and mother because she is violating religious norms and thus he is concerned with her spiritual well being. It is not necessary to bring her to beis din … It is not just in this case but whatever she does against religious norms he can hit her until her soul leaves. Even if she is just passively not doing a mitzva. Nevertheless one should not be quick to hit his wife but rather should try to correct her verbally. But if he sees she is not obeying than he can use physical force. It is not just in the case of a master and his slave or a husband and wife – the same principle applies to every Jew that he can you physical force against another Jew in order to prevent him from sinning. The Rosh (13) also says this is permitted. We see also in Erchin (16b) that it is permitted to hit another to chastise them. However this permission to hit another Jew for the sake of chastisement is not given to all Jews but only those who have a reputation for integrity that it is clear they are only doing it for the sake of Heaven. And he must also be a very distinguished person. But an ordinary person is not allowed because if so than there would be anarchy and society would be ruined. Every low life will go and hit his fellow and claim it is chastisement because in fact there is no perfect tzadik. In truth the Torah only gives permission for judges to hit other people or an important person whose words should be listen to – if he sees his fellow attempting to commit a sin he is permitted to stop him by hitting him. All depends on what the judges see fit to do. This that there is a restriction that only judges or very important people are allowed to hit others to stop them from sinning is in regards to mitzvos concerning man and G d. However concerning issues between men – for example if a person witnesses another person hitting someone – it is permitted for all men even the most simple – to save their fellow. To save a person from a beating it is permitted to beat the attacker in order to save the victim, as I will explain…

Education not to be a fool - "A fool is one who believes everything" Mishlei 14:15)

Proverbs(14:15): The simpleton believes every word; but the prudent man looks well where he is going.

In the 1960's, a book was published "Teaching as a subversive activity. The authors asserted that there  are two types of teaching 1) socialization to the community norms and behaviors 2) teaching students how to discriminate be what is true and what is false or irrelevant. While it is obvious to most of us that the first type of teaching is critical to the survival of any community, the question is what about type 2? Is there any importance to teaching students to be skeptical and critical when presented with information or is this inherently rejected by any religious or faith based community?

Another way of expressing this, is the main point of education in the yeshivos and seminaries to reproduce in the new generation the same thinking and understanding that existed in the previous generations. Or as one educator described the process of note taking, A process whereby the notes of the teacher becomes the notes of the students without basing through the minds of the students?

Is teaching this type of critical attitude, doomed to produce a generation of cynics and heretics? Or is there not only a solid religious justification for this type of education but I will argue it is a religious imperative - if one wants to maintain a high level of spirituality and commitment in the future generations.

At this point let me cite some source [which are I collected in my Daas Torah] - aside from the above verse from Mishlei. It is important to note the attitude presented as important for religious issues - so surely it is important for non-religious issues.

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Nineteen Letters #18): [The leaders of Orthodoxy] became at first enemies of this philosophical spirit, and later of all specifically intellectual and philosophical pursuits in general. Certain misunderstood utterances [e.g., Bereishis Rabbah 44:1] were taken as weapons with which to repel all higher interpretations of the Talmud . . . The inevitable consequence was, therefore, that since oppression and persecution had robbed Israel of every broad and natural view of world and of life, and Talmud had yielded about all the practical results for life of which it was capable, every mind that felt the desire of independent activity was obliged to forsake the paths of study and research in general open to the human intellect, and to take its recourse to dialectic subtleties and hairsplitting. Only a very few [e.g., R’ Yehuda HaLevi’s Kuzari and Ramban] during this entire period stood with their intellectual efforts entirely within Judaism, and built it up out of its own inner concept [Drachman translation]…. we are left with two generations confronting each other. One of them has inherited an uncomprehended Judaism, as practiced by men from habit, a revered but lifeless mummy which it is afraid to bring back to life. The other, though in part burning with noble enthusiasm for the welfare of the Jews, regards Judaism as bereft of any life and spirit, a relic of an era long past and buried, and tries to uncover its spirit, but, not finding it, threatens through its well‑meant efforts to sever the last life nerve of Judaism - out of sheer ignorance [Paritzky translation].

Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 1:50): You should know that knowledge concerning religious beliefs is not simply utterings of the mouth. Rather they are what is manifest in the soul when it has been ascertained that it is true as understood. However, if you are of the type for whom it is sufficient merely to repeat correct views or at least those that you assume are correct views without understanding or thought about them - that is a very easy yet superficial path. You will find many fools who hold views that they don’t understand at all. However if you are one of those who have aspirations to elevate your heart to the highest level - that is the level of understanding…There are in fact no meaningful beliefs without thoughtful understanding what these beliefs actually are. In particular, to verify as best you can that what you imagine to be true is objectively that way. If you have established that there can be no rational basis for rejecting the belief or doubts regarding the belief - then you have certainty that your understanding is correct…. Rather than being a person who can only utter things without having internalized them, a person should be one who knows the truth even if they don’t publicize their knowledge. This is as the pious people have been commanded (Tehilim 4:5), “Commune with your own heart upon your bed and be still’.

Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:51): There are some who think a lot about G d and mention Him frequently but have no knowledge and merely follow imagination or accept tradition blindly. To my mind, such people are outside of the habitation and are far from it and do not in truth mention or think about G d. Because that which is merely in his imagination or uttered by his lips does not correspond to any existing being at all. He has created it in his imagination as we explained concerning attributes. This type of devotion to G d should only be done after he has a clear understanding of theological issues - to the best of his ability. Only after achieving this intellectual comprehension should one begin to increase devotion to Him and become attached to Him and to strengthen his attachment to Him which must be through the intellect.

Chovas HaLevavos (1:2): The second way to know something is to rely upon a tradition because he believes the one who taught him the tradition. However, he doesn’t know whether it is in fact true through reason and understanding. Relying solely on tradition is comparable to a blind person who is being led by a sighted person. It is possible that he is in fact being led by another blind person who in turn is led by a whole line of blind people. Each one of the blind people placing his hand on the blind person in front of him while the leader of these blind people is a sighted person. If the sighted leader is negligent and fails to guard them or if one of the blind people stumbles or accident - then all of them would suffer the consequences. They would deviate from the path or fall into a hole or be blocked by some obstacle. Similarly, the person who understands G d’s unity solely through the rote learning of tradition cannot be sure that he won’t come to believe in polytheism when he hears the arguments of the heretics. He might come to alter his understanding and err without being aware of it. That is why our Sages said (Avos 2:14): Study Torah diligently and know how to answer the heretic.
Rambam (Letter to Yemen): You should know that just as a blind person relies on the guidance of a sighted person because he knows his blindness prevents him from knowing the proper path, and just as a person ignorant of medicine relies on the knowledge of a doctor to guide him because he doesn’t know what is beneficial and what will harm him and thus puts his trust in the doctor - similarly it is appropriate for the average rabbi to rely on guidance from the prophets and the true experts in halacha to be informed which approach and perspective is correct and which is incorrect. After the period of the prophets [leadership was passed to] the sages who studied, night and day, all types of ideas, systems and concepts as to which were correct and which were incorrect.
Netziv (Introduction to She’iltos): Sanhedrin (24a): Eicha (3:6): “He has made me dwell in the dark places as those that have been long dead” refers to the Babylonian Talmud.” This statement was not meant - G d forbid - as not an insult to the Babylonian Talmud. It means that since Babylonia was a [spiritually] dark place totally devoid of the light of Torah [in contrast to Israel] it was only through the brilliant flame of the dialectical analysis that the Babylonian Talmud was able to penetrate the darkness and arrive at the correct Halacha. Sanhedrin (24a) also mentions that the term Babylonia means mixture. That is because the Babylonian Talmud was a mixture of Bible, Mishna and Gemora. Because of the spiritual darkness of Babylonia, it was necessary to be involved in very deep analysis of a wide range of texts. This tremendous intellectual effort produced greatness in Torah and spiritual light. In contrast, Israel, which is inherently spiritual, needed only a relatively small effort in Torah to create spiritual light.
Ramchal (Mesilas Yeshorim - Introduction): If you look carefully at the world today you will find that the majority of brilliant minds devote most of their energy to esoteric analysis and profound wisdom - each one according to their interests and nature. Some are totally devoted to studying the natural sciences such as physics and biology. Others study the practical issues of engineering and architecture. Some are totally committed to business while others are interested in understanding holy things such as Torah. Of those devoted to Torah, some concentrate on understanding theoretical halachic issues while others focus on medrash and still others work to master practical Halacha. However only a tiny minority of this Torah group make a serious effort to study and understand issues relevant to perfecting their service of G d e.g., loving, fearing and coming close to Him and other issues of piety. This neglect is not because piety is viewed as unimportance. In fact, everyone would say that piety is extremely necessary and that no one can be considered wise unless he has mastered all these matters. However, they justify their failure to study these important issues by saying that the concepts associated with piety are so obvious and well known that there is no need to devote significant time to understanding them. Consequently, study of these matters is left to the less than brilliant minds - to those close to being retarded. In fact since only simple folk devote themselves totally to piety, it is typically assumed that anyone who engages in these studies most be dim witted. However, the consequences of this attitude are extremely damaging both to the intelligent and the not so intelligent. The intelligent end up lacking true piety because they don’t study it and therefore very few individuals are actually pious. The unintelligent lack true piety because they are unable to comprehend it. Consequently, the majority of mankind mistakenly thinks being pious means to say incredible amounts of Psalms, to make very long confessions of sin and to subject oneself to debilitating physical activities such as fasting, and immersing in ice and snow. In other words the “pious” person is one who engages in activities that are universally viewed as repellent and debasing. In fact, true piety is desirable, pleasant, and very far from this common stereotype. It is quite obvious that something that people are not really concerned with doesn’t impact their daily lives. Therefore, even though the basic ideas of piety are familiar to everyone - if you don’t seriously think about them they have no impact on your life. Piety is not something innate, natural and intuitive like sleeping or eating… It requires a conscious program to acquire and develop… Therefore, even though the ideas are easily comprehended and it is obvious how piety manifests itself in life, but piety is not implanted in some one’s heart unless he consciously pursues it. Consequently, since every intelligent person acknowledges the need for piety…what will he answer G d concerning his neglect of developing his piety? Does it make sense to be totally devoted to abstract and arcane theoretical analyses of Torah and Halacha while totally neglecting that which G d unequivocally demands from us?… Shlomo said (Mishlei 2:4–5):If you will seek it like wealth and search for it like hidden treasures then you will come to understand fear of G d [and find knowledge of G d]. He didn’t say then you will understand philosophy, science, medicine, laws or Halacha - but then you will understand fear of G d. Shlomo is clearly stating that fear of G d is acquired only with the same type of effort one devotes to becoming rich or finding treasure… Why doesn’t a person at least set aside some time to look into the matter even if he is already committed to other activities? 
Rabbeinu Bachye (Pirkei Avos 2:19): One should learn diligently in order to be able to answer the heretic. Even though you have the true faith which you have received from your father and your father received it from his father in a line going back to Moshe on Sinai - nevertheless this should not be viewed as sufficient. You also need faith based upon wisdom and knowledge. That is because if you only have faith based on received tradition, it is likely that you will hear the words of heretics that will twist your heart after their views. Therefore, it is necessary to also have faith based on knowledge and wisdom. If you have such faith then when you hear their words you will be able refute their views with intellectual proofs and obviously you will not be influenced by them. However, the heretic that you should argue with is only the non Jewish one but not a Jewish one - since it will just deepen his rejection of religion (Sanhedrin 38b).

Alter of Kelm (Chochma v’Musar 2:62): Why does it say [in the Amida prayer said three times a day] ‘Our G d and the G d of our forefathers’? The answer is that there are two types of people who believe in G d. The first believes in G d entirely because he is following in the footsteps of his ancestors but nevertheless his faith is strong. The second is one who comes to religious faith because of intellectual investigation. Their religious faith, however, is not identical. The first one has the advantage that it is impossible to persuade him to give up his beliefs even by presenting many facts that seem to contradict - Heaven forbid - his faith. That is because the strength of his faith comes entirely from traditions received from his ancestors which he has never questioned or even thought about. However, there is a problem with this approach in that his faith is simply reflexive habit without any inherent personal meaning to him. This is in contrast to the independent thinker who came to believe in G d through his intensive investigations. He not only has strong faith but one which is all encompassing on a personal level since it engages both the intellect and the emotions. However, this approach also has a critical weakness in that his beliefs are open to refutation - Heaven forbid - if someone should show him strong proofs against his conclusions. Therefore, one who has the advantages of both approaches is superior to someone have one approach alone. That means that while a person should learn from tradition what is true, he should also investigate to understand what these truths are. This is the proper approach to faith. That is why we say ‘Our G d and the G d of our forefathers’ [He is the G d of tradition but is also the G d we have come to understand more deeply and meaningfully through study and thought]. This can be used to explain the verse (Tehilim 34:9), ‘Taste and see that G d is good’. The ‘taste’ refers to our personal investigations and ‘see’ refers to seeing that which our ancestors did

Religious court stumbles upon polygamous cult after bride requests annulment.


A religious court in Tel Aviv uncovered a secret cult practicing polygamy recently, when a young bride taken in by the cult reached out to the court for help.

The stranger-than-fiction story began when a young woman, now 20-years old, raised in a non-observant home, began to move towards traditional Jewish observance.

The young woman studied in a seminary and like many of her newly religious peers, was given an “adoptive” family to help her through the transition into religious life and to have a “home base” for regular Shabbat visits. She was warmly received by the couple and their 10 children in what was initially a very constructive arrangement for the young woman.

After roughly six months, however, the husband began making subtle romantic advances towards the girl. As time passed, his appeals became more direct and increasingly assertive.
To the young woman’s surprise, the wife was not only aware of her husband’s attempts to court the girl, she fully supported his efforts. [...]

At the heart of the group’s beliefs is the idea that polygamy, banned halakhically for Ashkenazi Jews a millennium ago and ended among Sephardic Jews (where it bore no resemblance to a cult) after the foundation of the State of Israel, is an essential part in the road to “the Redemption of Israel”.

A self-styled “Kabbalist” serving as a spiritual leader within the cult urged the young woman to become the husband’s second wife, telling her that “the root of her soul” is connected “with the root of his soul” and that for her own benefit she must marry him.
Eventually the girl relented to the pressure and in September was wed in a secret ceremony.

Shortly thereafter, however, the bride regretted her decision and shared her story with relatives, who urged her to secure a formal divorce from the man she had been pressured into marrying.

Last week the young woman approached a rabbinic court in Tel Aviv with her story, begging the court to grant her an annulment.
Although marriages are licensed in Israel and this was not a legal marriage, the relationship is considered a marriage halakhically and the young woman must obtain a divorce or annulment from the religious courts to be able to remarry.
The court, which included Rabbis Shlomo Stasman, Eyal Yosef, and Ido Shahar, called in the couple who had pressured the young woman into marriage and the two witnesses to the wedding. After a hearing, the judges issued a restraining order on the husband, barring him from harassing the young woman. Additional orders were placed on him and his wife, preventing them from fleeing the country until a full investigation into the matter is completed

Among their findings in the case, the court confirmed that the couple in question are indeed affiliated with a sect advocating polygamy. The group’s website, www.Jewishhome.net, advocates in favor of the restoration of polygamy, presenting what it claims are quotes in favor of the practice by prominent rabbis, both past and present. [....]


After initially attempting to justify his actions and refusing to issue a divorce to the young woman, the husband gave in to the court’s demands and agreed to immediately grant her the divorce.

Yibam (levirate marriage): A wife is considered as one of her husband's limbs like Eve was of Adam

Chinuch (598): The basis of the mitzva of Yibam (levirate marriage) is that a woman through marriage age becomes like one of her husband's limbs. That is because nature necessitates this as the result of the story of the first father (Adam) from whom was taken one of his limbs and from it G-d created a woman. Therefore this man who died without children who would have been a portion from him for his memory and who would have taken his place in the world to serve his Creator. He has left no remnant of himself in the physical world except for his wife who is the bone of his bones and the flesh of his flesh. Consequently it is a manifestation of G-d’s kindness to him to establish offspring for him from his wife through his brother (who is also like half his flesh) in order that there shall be offspring for him to replace him in the world and to serve his Creator in his stead. Therefore he will receive merit through this offspring in the world of souls where he is now. As is known a son brings merit to his father (Sanhedrin 104a), “A son brings merit to his father but a father does not bring merit to his son.” Similarly in truth, the living brother who fathered the children from the wife of the deceased also receives a portion of their merit. However not all the merit goes to him, because his deceased brother takes his portion because of the great portion that he has in the children i.e., the wife that was part of the deceased brother’s original portion as I have explained. And according to this, we can understand the meaning of Bereishis (38:9), “And Onan knew that the offspring from his deceased brother’s wife would not be his.” This means that he knew that not all the merit of the offspring of his deceased brother’s wife would belong to him because his deceased brother would take some. Onan simply was not interested in receiving less than the full merit. And also because perhaps the main merit would go to his deceased brother who was like the owner of the field while he was only be like the sharecropper. (It is well known that sometimes the sharecropper must also supply the seed.) This idea was expressed in Yevamos (22a), that as long as the deceased brother has any remnant in the world – whether it is a son or daughter from another woman or even if it a son or daughter who is a mamzer – the wife of the deceased is exempt from Yibum. Thus it seems that the basis for Yibum is only to memorialize the deceased brother’s name and to give him a portion and merit in this physical world. [See Moreh Nevuchim 3:49]

The honor of a Jewish women is staying in the house - moral value or halacha?

Alschich(Bereishis 34:1): And Dina went out.  It is incredible that the holy offspring such as Dina would be a gadabout – something which is not acceptable for women and especially not young virgins. Our Sages (Bereishis Rabba 80:1) say that the reason that the verse says that she was the daughter of Leah was to explain that just as her mother was a gadabout as it says that Leah went out to meet her husband... However the fact is that the behavior of Leah was not comparable to that of Dina because Leah went out to meet her husband. Furthermore our Sages say that it was because she was withheld from Esav that she was captured. But all of this doesn't explain  the fact that Dina was a gadabout. I think that when the Torah says that she was Leah’s daughter it to explain why she was a gadabout.... It says in Berachos (60a) ...that after Leah became pregnant with a boy she prayed that it be a female so as to not further disgrace her sister Rachel to have less male children then the maidservants and have only one boy to complete the expected number of 12 male children. We see from this gemora that Dina when she was conceived was a boy but she was changed into a girl before being born. Therefore someone who is in essence a male – it is not surprising that she should be a gadabout because that is a male characteristic and everything follows from the essence....

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.

Chasam Sofer(Shabbos 21b): And those who are mehadrin (zealous) each person lights their own candle. I saw that someone asked why our women do not act according to the mehadrin view (and don’t light their own candle)?  Especially when we see that if there is no male member of the household lighting that they light an extra candle each day in accord with the view of mehadrin min hamehadrin (extremely zealous). If they follow the view of mehadrin min hamedhadrin why don’t they also follow the mehadrin view? Answer: In my humble opinion, initially they decreed that the candles should be lit at the entrance door outside the house. Thus the mehadrin view is that each family member would go outside to light his own candle in addition to that done by the family head. Thus we will not find any woman who follows the mehadrin practice because it is not respectable for her to go out into the street at night and to light amongst the men. However if there is no male member of the household who lights, then the obligation is on her and she is forced to go outside to light. However if there is a male household member light then it is not a pious act for her to be strict with herself which will arouse suspicions against her. So even now that everyone lights inside, nevertheless the original practice of lighting outside has not been rejected and thus we keep the original practice as much as possible and the women don’t light.

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].

Gra(Letter to his wife): Purchase all your needs through a messenger, even if this would cost two or three times as much.….Concerning solitude, the main thing is to remain at home. Even your visit to the synagogue should be very short. In fact, it is better to pray at home, for it is impossible to be spared from jealousy or from hearing idle talk or lashon hara in the synagogue. And one receives punishment for this, as we find (Shabbos 33a), "Also one who hears and is silent...." This is even the more so on Shabbos and Yom Tov when they gather to talk - It is then better that you don't pray at all. Refrain also from going to the cemetery (especially women), as it leads to all kinds of sorrow and sin. It is also advisable that your daughter not go to the synagogue, because she'll see beautiful clothes there, become jealous and talk about it at home. This will lead to lashon hara, etc.

Kesef Mishneh: A wife must give straw to her husband’s animals, but she need not give water. This is because normally one leaves the house to go to the river or spring for this, and “Kol Kevudah…”

Magid Mishna(Hilchos Ishus 13:11): If it is the custom in that community for a woman not to go out As we said before, everything depends on the local custom and therefore the Rambam did not have to go into detail except to note that even though she could stay in the house without a cloak but since she can not go to the market without it her husband is obligated to give her a cloak in order that she can go visit a house of mourners or other places.... But it is a degradation of a woman…  In Bereishis Rabba (8:12) it mentions that an insult to say that a woman is always going out as it says that Dina went out. The Sifri (Tetzei 242 (23), regarding a Na'arah Me'orasah who was enticed to zenus, says that a breach (going out in the city) calls to the thief. The husband should prevent her from going out too much... as it says in Bereishis Rabah (8:12) which reads "Kivshuha" like 'Kavshah' to teach that a husband should prevent his wife from going out too much.

Menoras HaMeor(Chapter 20: Derech Eretz): A woman should not go out of the doorway of her house – except out of great necessity. That is because a woman who “goes out” sins and causes others to sin. How will she sin? It is known that women are light headed (daatan kalah) and it is possible that she will see men in the market and lust after them in her heart. It says in Bereishis Rabbah, “And man will fill the earth and conquer it”, that is understood to mean that a man should control his wife that she should not go out to the market since all those who go to the market will end up stumbling as is proven by the incident of Dina. It says in Tanchuma, “And Dina went out,” but it says in Tehilim that all the glory of the king’s daughter is being inside. Rav Yossi said that when a woman secludes herself within the house she deserves to marry a high priest and to have sons who are high priests as it says, “All the glory of the king’s daughter is being inside.” And if you remain honorably within the house then you will end up wearing golden garments meaning that you will marry someone one who deserves to wear the precious garments of the high priest. Rav Pinchas bar Chama said, When a woman secludes herself within the house – then just as the altar atones for sins - she will atone for her house.

Rambam(Hilchos Ishus 13:11): …A woman should be given proper clothing to go the house of her father or to the house of mourning or to a banquet. That is because every woman should visit her father’s house or visit the house of mourning or a banquet as well as show kindness to her friends and relatives in order that they should reciprocate with her. She is not a prisoner in her house that she is not free to come and go. However it is a degrading thing if she is always going outside - sometimes just outside and at other times into the streets. It is necessary that the husband restrains his wife from this and not let his wife go out except once a month or perhaps twice a month according to need. That is because the beauty of a woman is to sit in the corner of her house as it says in Tehilim (45:14): All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside.

Rav Menashe Klein(9:250): Question: Concerning the halacha principle that a Jewish woman is considered a princess and therefore it is more respectful for that status that she should remain in the home (kavod bas melech penima) – is it preferable that a wife leave the home for the sake of her husband to a place of immorality [in order to earn a living or other purposes]. Answer: It is difficult to give a clear written response to this question. That is because in modern time this principle that it is best that a Jewish woman should stay in the home is almost nonexistent – because of our many sins. If a woman does remain in her home and doesn’t go out for any reason– even if it causes her husband to lose Torah study - then this is definitely an example of the principle. Traditionally a woman did not go out of her house. However after the Holocaust (because of our many sins) – when we find ourselves a small minority amongst the nations of the world and earning a livelihood is difficult – it has become normative practice for women to leave their homes. However in places outside the home there is the possibility of immorality and no protection against sexual sins – therefore it depends on the nature of the society and the characteristics of the woman. In particular whether she would in fact remain in the house all day if she had the opportunity. (See what I wrote in Mishne Torah 4:125) concerning sending Beis Yaakov girls out to collect money for charity.) First we need to clarify whether we actually rule that this principle is the halacha. It seems that in fact that it is a dispute amongst the poskim - as we see from Gittin 12 that apparently we don’t follow such a principle. Similarly Mahari Bruno (#242) was asked regarding a maid servant who did not want to leave the home to do the shopping because of this principle. He responded that we don’t rule in accord with this principle. In contrast we see in Yevamos (77a) that this principle is cited as halacha [from the fact that Amonite and Moabite women were not punished for failing to provide the Jews with bread and water - since all respectable woman remain in the home] . The Nimukei Yosef say there that the principle is halacha because all Jews are considered royalty. Shulchan Aruch (E.H 4) also rules like Yevamos (77a). See the Levush. Consequently we seem to have contradictory evidence as to whether it is halacha. Furthermore in Shabbos (111a), Rav Shimon says that all Jews are royalty and that is the halacha. On the other hand the Ran says that the Rif says that the halacha that all Jews are not considered royalty. However the BeHag and Rabbeinu Chananel rule like Rav Shimon...Rashi (Shabbos 59) writes that all Jews are royalty. Similarly in Mishna Berachos (1:2) says that they are royalty. However Rabbeinu Yona says normally they are not considered royalty but here we do. In my chidushim I write that there are three different circumstances. In truth there is no question that the honor of a princess is to stay in the home. However in spite of that, we find with Ruth that she did go out to gather grain amongst the other harvesters – and she is praised for doing so.  But look at Rashi and the interpretations of Chazal that say when she went out she sought out the company of proper people. If so we can state that when a person does need to go out of the home this principle requires finding a place where there are proper people. In such circumstances there is no prohibition.

Shulchan Aruch (EH 73:1): Regarding clothing, a man is obligated to give his wife according to what women normally wear outside... And thus if a woman normally would not go out without a cloak that covers her whole body he is required to give her one. However a woman should not not accustom herself  to go out a lot becasue the beauty of a woman is to dwell inside her home...

Tehilim(45:14): All the honor of the king’s daughter is within; her clothing is of embrodiered gold.

Tur(E.H. 73): It is appropriate that a wife go the the house of mourning or to simcha. That is because every woman should go visit her parents as well the house of mourning or a simcha in order to bestow kindness on her friends and relatives - in order that they reciprocate for her. After all she is not a prisoner in jail who can not come and go. However it is degrading for a woman to go out of her home constantly either to go somewhere or to be on the street. Consequently a man should prevent his wife from doing so. He should not allow her out except for once or twice a month according to the need. That is because there is no beauty for a women except to sit inside her home  as it says “All the honor of the princess is to be inside.”

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.