Shalom David,

The object of a debate is not to convince another person of an absolute truth; in Torah especially, such intent is counterproductive. Instead, debating is a means of reaching a higher plane of understanding. You have brought some very interesting points to the fore, and I have learned a great deal from you (as have many others on this forum, I am sure). I am sorry that this discussion cannot continue.

I have offered many solutions to this problem of a uniquely " female (your emphasis) emotional handicap", solutions that seem to jibe with the texts you quote and the experiences you and I both call reality. Despite the fact that you have witnessed a recalcitrant tendency in female attorneys, squeamishness in little girls, and an overall "lightmindndess" in the female gender at large, I have noted many cases that speak to a totally different reality. This is not the indoctrination of my "English culture" speaking. Indeed, most of my views are abhored by "liberals". I am resoundingly conservative" on the subject of women Rabbis, beholden to the same traditions buttressing your arguements. However, I stake no claims on the "implication[s] [of] the savant men of our nation...". How could we know the full implications of their wisdom with so many new experiences ahead of us? The Talmud speaks to all ages. There are remedies in our Oral Law for extinct diseases, descriptions of civilizations no longer extant. Maybe the description of women as "lightminded" refers to a sympton of ignorance, a symptom especially prominent in societies that do not value female education. The conspicuous absence of any direct comment on "inherent verses learned" behavior seems extremely important.

Many Jews--specifically those in the Chabad movement--have allowed the possibility that women are capable of acting as leaders and Torah scholars in their communties: Rebbetzin (to go back to a discussion you had with another member earlier on in this thread). Surely, these hasidim have not been indoctrinated by Western culture. If there is one community that has remaind especially immune from modern liberal views, it is the Hasidic World.

It is a dangerous proposition, in my mind, to categorically cast all females as emotionally handicap--even a majority of females. Doing so renders all of their insight suspect. This debate centers not on whether women should be Rabbis, but rather, on my insistence that the "female emotional handi-cap" is either an artifact of a lack of education or a product of a sexist bent in some cultures. I still do not know why this is so offensive to your sensibilities.

What's more, it would be much easier for me--and much more in line with my perspectives (despite the fact that you consider me totally brainwashed by the liberal West)--if your claims were true. I already agree that there should be separate roles for men and women, so I am not arguing from a gender equality perspective. And I see feminist critiques of art and literature as largely biased, and chauvinistic. So why this dogged insistence that women are not emotionally handi-cap? Because, as I have said, the majority of professional, educated women I know are not.

I understand your frustration: I can hear myself sounding "liberal". But I assure, I am not.

There is a lot I can learn from you, and I really sense your wisdom and intelligence. I hope this doesn't sour our relationship as scholars, and more importantly, as brethen.

Your Friend,

Chaim

David Wrote:
"Then, obviously, it is here that you take issue with the Rabbis and scholars of our Talmud,"

Frankly, David, this is not a sin. Even the beloved Rabbis of lur Talmud CONSISTENTLY took issue with one another. What IS an issue is if you ACT in a matter that goes against their concensus. moreover, as to your comment:

Yocheved,

There happens to be one major difference. We, as Jews, are supposed to emulate the minds and thoughts of our Sages. They saw that women were not fit for all roles in life.

David

With respect, we are to emmulate HaSh-m. We consult and accept the judgements of our Sages because HaSh-mplaced them over us and are holy men to us because their number one concern was HaSh-m and His WIll. They were still human and were basing their judgements on the context they were in with regard to the area-specific people being addressed and the unique situations facing them. We STILL go to our Rabbis to address CURRENT issues facing us. THey look to the Sages/Talmud and then to the situation facing us, and then apply one section (or not) based upon the changing age we live in.

Many women were not permitted to be educated at all, therefor the manner with which they were regarded was absolutely reflective of that: uneducated simpletons (for the most part) and I would be hard pressed to imagine a Rabbi of that time seeing someone like a female of our supreme court in the same light.

Does this change the fact that NORMATIVE JUDAISM dictates a woman should not be a Rabbi?

No.

What it DOES SUGGEST is that the REASONS for the answer "NO" for TODAY, are probably very different than the reasons for the answer "NO" in the past. And trying to APPLY those same archaic reasons, a la "women being light-minded" etc., today, is simply not appropriate nor can it be sufficiently backed, as the evidences are stacked against you.

The point is that for whatever reasons, (women's daunting tasks of child-rearing, care for the home, suffering because of the time-constraints etc.) that ARE applicable today, HaSh-m knew them, and it is STILL not appropriate for a woman to be a Rebbe even if for different reasons than those applicable in the past.

None of the reasons for our prohibition today should really be based upon inability (except on an individual case) but rather because (as I said quite exhaustively before) HaSh-m said "No".

I would love to be a Rabbi. I am quite certain I COULD DO the task, given the completion of my education in Talmud. This is my own selfish desire to be reading, teaching and judging and organizing all the time.

But I WOULD NOT be a Rabbi because HaSh-m gave me other responsibilities (namely my children and family) that I must attend first, foremost, and to the best of my abilities. I could NEVER meet that task completely if I became a Rabbi. In short, my family would suffer immediate and long-term affects that would likely be unrecoverable in nature. HaSh-m knows this. So I do what I do well, and stay in the place HaSh-m gave me, trusting in His wisdom.

I bloom where I am planted.

David,
So how is it that during the times of Chizkiyahu Hamelech, our Sages tell us, that every man, WOMAN, and child knew the halachos of Tumah and Taharah (the most intricate and difficult of halachos) if women are intellectually inferior?
I do not believe HaKadosh Baruch Hu means for women to be inferior, or not equal, as you wrote. He has determined the roles which we are, generally speaking, to follow in order to achieve the ultimate goal, as Yocheved alluded to, which is to come closer to Hashem through emulating His ways. One of His ways is "Hashem is good to ALL, and His Mercy is on ALL of His Creations (Ashrei)." Even those who are treated by others as inferior (cf my alluding to Tana D'bei Eliyahu with B'nos Tzlafchad). If I may quote Ramban from his Igeres, "Nimtza Hakol Shavve lifnei Hamakom = Turns out that all are equal before Hashem."
We women represent malchus=nothing without a nation. But when we have what to rule, then malchus is everything! All the Kavod, all the glory is focussed on the king. without a king, what is a nation?
So in this world women are treated lowly, on a lower level, so that Hashem will indeed lift us up when He reveals His malchus in the world. But in essense, we are equal, men and women both. We have different roles to play, that's all. Remember, Matza Isha, Matza Tov!=If you find a (good) woman, you have found (the source) of goodness." THat sounds at least equal to me...

quote:

Originally posted by Miriam32:
David,
So how is it that during the times of Chizkiyahu Hamelech, our Sages tell us, that every man, WOMAN, and child knew the halachos of Tumah and Taharah (the most intricate and difficult of halachos) if women are intellectually inferior? ... But in essense, we are equal, men and women both. We have different roles to play, that's all.

Miriam, Shalom!

Again, I never made the outright bold remark that women were "intellectually inferior" to men. This would be belittling their accomplishments in the various branches of science, arts, humanities, etc. Rather, I have only stressed that, because of some inherent idiosynchrasies found in the general make-up of women, it seemed right unto G-d to exclude them from acting in certain roles held by men, in order that justice might not be obstructed.

The kabbalists have often associated "Din" (Judgment) with women, as opposed to "mercy" or "loving-kindness" with men. This happens to be well-known to those who read their writings.

I cannot agree with you more that, in the eyes of G-d, men and women are, both, equal. Each have their own roles, and contribute in the scheme of things.

David

quote:

Originally posted by Chaim5739:
Shalom David,

The object of a debate is not to convince another person of an absolute truth; in Torah especially, such intent is counterproductive. Instead, debating is a means of reaching a higher plane of understanding. ... Maybe the description of women as "lightminded" refers to a sympton of ignorance, a symptom especially prominent in societies that do not value female education. The conspicuous absence [in the Talmud] of any direct comment on "inherent verses learned" behavior seems extremely important.

It is a dangerous proposition, in my mind, to categorically cast all females as emotionally handicapped--even a majority of females. Doing so renders all of their insight suspect.

My friend, Chaim,

You have spoken well. I do not have the answers to all of your questions.

I will say, however, that if we should just lay back and ignore those basic truths, and disregard with impunity what our Rabbis have taught us, what would prevent others from re-writing the entire Talmud!? We cannot just sit back and allow the undoing of our laws, simply because of "new things that have come of late." (see: Devorim 32:17. חדשים מקרוב באו). If we should do this now, and others should follow in our footsteps - without substantiating our views with authentic rabbinic commentary - we would have lost our traditions and the customs of our fathers. It would then become easy to cancel their words and their many and invaluable insights into our world.

The Sages have said that women, as a whole, are lightminded. In another place, we learn that he who teaches his daughter Torah, teaches her frivolity. (Tractate Sotah) Can such "lightmindedness" be reconciled by learning Torah? But we avert that it is not good to teach one's daughter too much Torah. As you can see, it's a vicious cycle. (I have personally observed, in Yemen, that young girls are far more docile when they have been denied formal education, and are basically trained by their mothers to serve as home-makers.)

Rather, the Sages have spoken. The veracity of their words stands without question. Still, if you should desire to learn more about the "learned vs. inherent" behaviour in peoples, research this topic with the intent of confirming the words of our ancients, and do so with a critical demeanor, examining the reactions of, both, males and females when put in the same situations. Select only those that have been college-educated. Perhaps your conclusions will be similar to those described by our Rabbis.

I view this topic as closed between us, but will kindly address questions that others might have on the subject.

Yocheved,

You wrote:

quote:

"...trying to APPLY those same archaic reasons, a la "women being light-minded" etc., today, is simply not appropriate nor can it be sufficiently backed, as the evidences are stacked against you."

What I wrote to Chaim, applies to you as well.



Your friend,
David

Yocheved <<Frankly, David, this is not a sin. Even the beloved Rabbis of lur Talmud CONSISTENTLY took issue with one another. >>

I think there is a big difference between the "Rabbis of the Talmud" taking issue with one another and people of today presuming to be on a level to take issue with them, IF that is waht you are implying.

That is most certainly true and that would be very arrogant to place ones self on that level. However, it is not an issue for one to pick which side they agree with. I.e. The school of SHammai or Hillel on how to light CHannukah candles, etc.

There is no consensus on the "light-mindedness" of women in the Talmud, so yes, I disagree with that, and side with statements like the ones about Sarah being astute on occasions, etc.

<<However, it is not an issue for one to pick which side they agree with. I.e. The school of SHammai or Hillel on how to light CHannukah candles, etc.>>

That's not really true.

It is not us to choose or decide Halachah...the discussions are recorded in the Talmud to help us understand how Halachah is decided...not to give us options to choose from.

But sometimes they don't come to an agreement. What then? YOu go to your Rabbi, right? Or have I been doing it wrong all these years?

<<But sometimes they don't come to an agreement. What then? YOu go to your Rabbi, right? Or have I been doing it wrong all these years?>>

No...you are right....Halacha is not noted in the Talmud...or rarely noted. You ALWAYS go to your Rabbi.

For Halacha we look to the Shulchan Aruch (a codification of the Talmud by Yosef Caro), the Mishneh Torah (Rambam), the Mishnah Berurah (Chofetz Chaim), and others such as teshuvot by Halachic decisors (Poskim) like Rabbi Moshe Feinstein.... but unless you are a Rabbi (I know....sore subject).... we go to our own Rabbi for guidance for Halachic matters...that is their job.

Robby

But there are definite rules that the various earlier law-deciders (rishonim) had, which decides what the halocha is today. In fact there is a book called 'Halichos Olam' written by R' Yosef Caro which tells us the rules he used to learn the Talmud. It is never that we 'pick' a side.

Gut voch!
Dovi

quote:

the discussions are recorded in the Talmud to help us understand how Halachah is decided...not to give us options to choose from.

Might it ever happen that a position not quite like the established halacha but in coformance with the recorded position of a sage recorded in the gemara might be recommended by a rabbi to resolve a particular problem?

Which is to say that for some circumstances perhaps it would be preferable to utilized some minority opinions that are not the established halacha, rather than a modern innovation without such a basis?

quote:

Originally posted by Yocheved Broscova-Guerra:
There is no consensus on the "light-mindedness" of women in the Talmud, so yes, I disagree with that, and side with statements like the ones about Sarah being astute on occasions, etc.

The Midrash says that women, as a whole, are astute, or that they possess "acute discernment" - for Hashem has graced them with בינה יתירה. This is, actually, an exegesis on the biblical verse ויבן את הצלע ("And G-d built from the man's side, etc."), where the verb, "to build" (Heb. "Yeven), is homonymous with the verb, "to cause one to understand." This is, by no means, the plain sense and meaning of the text, but rather, only an expounded meaning. I have often heard this exegesis explained to mean that women possess an inkling of what character her guests, husband's friends, etc. are actually made-up of, even though she hardly knows the person. She has this vague intuition about them.

However, Sarah, was gifted with prophecy. She was unique as far as this gift was concerned. Not all women have this gift.

None of this takes away from the fact that in other areas, women were generally viewed as being "lightminded." This fact is not refuted anywhere in the Talmud. I understand this to mean that there is, indeed, a consensus on this issue.


Sincerely,
David

David, and others,

I am going to ask a question and it is coming from another perspective on this seeming impasse:

In the Torah,
HaSh-m used:

a book, the sun, a stick, a rock, a cloud, fire, sand, and an ass. Is it your contention, that due to the inexorable handicap of gender, G-d cannot use a WOMAN? And I do not mean for child rearing alone, so please let's stay on target.

Your view of our "weakness" must be intense indeed. Or your view of G-d's ability...

"None of this takes away from the fact that in other areas, women were generally viewed as being "lightminded." This fact is not refuted anywhere in the Talmud. I understand this to mean that there is, indeed, a consensus on this issue."

All evidence to the contrary...

<< Boys, on the other hand, are not taught to confront mice. Rather, they have a natural inclination to boldly confront them, chase them, catch them and kill them.>>

I hate to break this to you..... but I'm scared to death of spider and I hate rodents of all kind...I do not go charging after them

...and I'm considered a "manly man", by most! :-)

I don't like these kinds of generalizations about either gender.

I do not agree that women should be Rabbis.... bvut I think this whole thing is taking a wrong bent with this light-headedness issue.

Sarah Imanu, Rachel & Leah, & Miriam and countless others in the Torah are examples of the highest character and are people to emulate. Would Moses exist without Miriam? ....would the people have lived in the widerness if not for her merit and the water it provided?

...I could go on and on...

The women of the Torah & Bible are great people and have vital roles beyond bearing children...it's just that men and women have different roles....neither is better than the other.

Robby

quote:

Originally posted by Yocheved Broscova-Guerra:
"None of this takes away from the fact that in other areas, women were generally viewed as being "lightminded." This fact is not refuted anywhere in the Talmud. I understand this to mean that there is, indeed, a consensus on this issue."

All evidence to the contrary...

Yocheved,

If this is any indication of your progress in the study of our Talmud, and of the thoughts of our Rabbis, I suppose it will take you a considerable number of years to understand the depth of their mind, if ever. I would recommend your first reading what they say, accepting it, and then, later, trying to understand what exactly they were referring to. There is no "impasse" here, in the subject matter discussed, but rather, you are having a difficult time accepting what our Rabbis have said. The Rabbis have said in the Talmud (Sanhedrin): "There is no man who incrinates himself, and no one sees his own disabilities."

In another very good example of a statement made by the Rabbis, this time concerning the priests of Aaron's descent, they said: "Cohenim are naturally highly motivated." (כהנים זריזים הם) Now we could argue all day, and all night, as to the truth of this statement. Nevertheless, it's true, and in consideration of which the Rabbis at the time of the Temple period excluded the priests from many ordinary restrictions which would have applied to other people.

It is the same with the idiosyncrasis detected in women by the Rabbis. Someone once wrote: "Laws are sometimes unreasonable in themselves, and therefore repealed; and others bear too hard on the subject in particular instances, and therefore there is left a power somewhere to dispose with the execution of them." But general truths cannot be repealed.

I have not the presumption to expect that you may, at this time, be prevailed on to accept their words, and their sentiments concerning women. Afterall, you are a woman. But if you will look at our many proofs in this thread, and will judge of the sum and bearing thereof, you will find that the Sages of old were not blind to our human nature and conduct.

Sincerely,
David

David,
I argued neither of those points. So their being referenced is unclear,(perhaps the inability to see my own disability). Frankly, I doubt neither you nor I knwo ANYONE who fully understands the depth of the minds of all those great men before us, and if they did, I doubt they would admit it.
Nevertheless, my point remains:

I have NO difficulty ACCEPTING what the sages of our past say (nor of our present); it is only that I (unlike yourself) refuse to "cherry-pick" those that best suit my argument and ignore all the other things they say which indicate a completely different perspective on the same subject--or at least down play eight other observations made by them, curiously favoring a select two.

Much eveidence is to the contrary of that which you have expressed here. I have patiently read, considered, and looked up each of the pasages mentioned thus far. Can I help it if you disagree with my position?
Shalom,
Yocheved

When I read your postings about "light-mindedness" in women, or stinginess toward guests, I have almost nothing in my experience which lends itself to this. What do I do? I pull it apart in my mind and work through it to better understand it:

Which women are light-minded?
What was the social context in which this statement was made?
Were they mostly light-minded in his day?
Why were they light-minded?
What was their education and what were their daily concerns?
Would the Sage have said the same thing about women today?
What would the Sage say about women who are clearly NOT light-minded (i.e. Chief Justice)?
Would they be considered exceptions as in the past, or would they be a new face of "normative Judaism" as it has changed several times over the generations (even in clothing).

Then I go to find other passages that support/contrast his point of view.
You see, all these things matter to me, because I truly DO wish to know more about Torah/Talmud. Whether you are right or not about if I will perhaps never know the depth of their minds, well, that remains to be seen. Your remark will hardly keep that aspiration out of my mind and heart. If I didn't htink there was SOME possibility of it, I would hardly be encouraged to study, and would wonder why HaSh-m placed within me such a desire to know in the first place--although I admit this particular question was not on my immediate list of "need to knows" because I HAVE acepted that HaSh-m doesn't want women in that role, and this, quite frankly, good enough for me. I am not as bothered by it as you seem to be. I have far more pressing questions to explore that HAVE NOT been so clearly laid out and that I believe would aid me in awe of HaSh-m.