[Actually, it's not just so simple. It would depend on what one's wife tells him to do. Abraham listened to his wife, and he did the right thing. Adam listened to his wife, and he brought death into the world!

David[/QUOTE]

David,

If we examine the situation with Adam and Chava in depth we will see that in fact Adam acted on his own accord and not because of his wife trying to influence him to eat from the Etz HaDas. His intention was to bring the Yetzar Harah internally and battle it head on. His thoughts were that fighting off a Yetzer Harah would be a greater Kiddush Hashem than merely avoiding it. Unfortunately, he didn't realize how strong it was. That is why Hashem punishes him for trying to shift the blame onto Chava.

I ask you, if a woman would feed her husband treif, would he be to blame for eating it? After all, the Torah say "עד אחד נאמן באיסורים" "Eid Echad Ne'eman Bi'esurim".
Obviously, Adam knew the fruit was "treif" (sort-to-say) for him.

BTW - Thanks Devorah for the kind words. It's helpful to know that one's words didn't go to waist.

I must say that I'm sorry to see that some are trying more to defend the Torah, rather than try to help others understand the Torahs true wisdom.

The Torah is 100% the Emes! Everything that exists was created through the means of Torah. All (and I mean ALL) wisdom exists in the Torah. Our Sages, who were imbued with the depth of Torah, were of understanding way beyond comprehension. Our questioning of our great sages and belittling them with the foolish notions that they were guided by "the times" and/or "narrow-mindedness" stems from our serious lack of knowledge of Torah and our weakness in "Emunas Chachumim".

I have found that when we approach Chazal with the view that "they are right! Now, let me try to understand why!", we come to great understanding. Otherwise, we are prone to fumble in our foolishness. I will give one quick example.

We daven every day "shelo asani isha" "for not making me a woman". The obvious question is "doesn't this show that the Rabbis saw women as being second class "lihavdil!"?

If a person approaches Chazal with a scrutinizing eye and with a lack of Emunas Chachumim, he/she will come to the foolish conclusion that the Rabbis were indeed chauvinistic being that he/she cannot see beyond the "wall" that he/she created for himself/herself.

However, a person that says, "Whatever Chazal instituted, they did with great wisdom", that person will search and search until he/she comes to the true understanding. Thus a great light will shine upon him/her.

In the case brought, chazal explain (way before Women's Lib) that this bracha is a sequence of 3 brachas. They are "shelo asani Goy", "Shelo asani Aved", and last "Shelo Asani Isha". Q. What's wrong with being a Goy? A. They are limited to only seven mitzvot. The next two, the Eved and the Isha follow suit. An Eved Canaani has mitzvos like a Jewish woman, but none-the-less he lacks the essence of being a Jew. A Jewish woman is MUCH greater than these two, but non-the-less she lacks the חיוב (OBLIGATION) to fulfill ALL the Mitzvos.

What Chazal is trying to teach is that a Jewish man should not look at his Yoke of Mitzvos as a burden, but rather as a privilege! As if to say, "I've got more than him (the Goy), him (the Eved), and even more than her (the Eshes Chayil). If we look into Halacha we'll see that if a man accidentally skipped either "shelo asani Goy" or "Shelo Asani Aved" he is not allowed to go back and say the bracha again because the prior brachas are "Nichlal" (included) in the latter (being that the latter has more Mitzvos).

After learning this, we can see that Chazal’s intension was FAR removed from denigrating women. On the contrary, her true worth is hinted to here. (Perhaps I’ll explain this point another time.) See what a difference it makes to trust Chazal?!

BTW - To the questions "So why don't men say "Sh'asa Li Kirzono" (That he made me according to his will) like women say and why not say the positive, "Sh'asani Yehudi", etc, I have an answer. However, I will leave that for another time.

Good Chodesh and a Freliche Pesach!

Mordechai

B"H
Mordechai,

Thanks for your dvar Torah. Howbeit, it is still a dirshah (exegesis) on what might have been the motives of Adam. Whatever those motives were, it was his wife who tempted him. Adam succumbed to the temptations of his wife, although he knew that G-d had forbidden him to eat of it. This is in keeping with what we were taught:

"There is no Scripture which is meant to be taken outside of its plain and ordinary sense."
אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו
(שבת ס"ג, א)

If Adam had decided on his own to eat of the forbidden fruit, then what role would Chava (Eve) have played? At any rate, the lesson seems to be clear that not always can a man listen to the counsel of his wife - particulary, if that counsel is bad.

David

By the story line in Parshas Breishis, one view is that Adam embelished the first command given to him by Hashem when he said to Chava to not touch the tree, and the Nachash was able to use this "first chumrah" against them.

If Adam believed that this was the exact command, and saw Chava eating the fruit, and not immediately dying, its possible that he either didn't realize that this fruit was the fruit of that tree or didn't realize that this fruit was that forbidden, that he might have realized that he hadn't understood the command.

Given these factors, wouldn't it tie into our discussion to see that a rabbi teaching something inaccurately (and thus transgressing the mitzvah to not add or subtract to words of Torah) is the more accurate view of this scenario, and not a case of a wife paskening to her husband?

That is, if Adam's embellishment is what led to his subsequent forbidden action of eating the fruit, we cannot really ascribe its source to Chava.

Quote "If we examine the situation with Adam and Chava in depth we will see that in fact Adam acted on his own accord and not because of his wife trying to influence him to eat from the Etz HaDas."

If you look in Rashi in Shabbos 32a D"H Hareini Brings a Brashis Rabbah that accuses Chava of causing Adam to sin, thus woman need a Tikun for what she did.

Quote "Actually Hashem HAS told you to listen to women..... He told Avraham to listen to his wife Sarah.
All men should listen to their wives!!"

From Sarah there is no proof since she was a Niveah. As Rashi says that she was greater than Avraham in Nivuah. How can you translate this to other woman.

The Gemarah in BM 59a (and is paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf) says

(f) (Rav): Anyone who follows his wife's counsel falls to Gehinom - we learn from Achav.

(g) Question (Rav Papa): But people say, if your wife is short, bend down to listen to her!

(h) Answer #1: In matters of the house, listen to her, not regarding worldly matters.

(i) Answer #2: In worldly matters, listen to her, not regarding spiritual matters.

I think this sums it up.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rav Chaim:

1. If you look in Rashi in Shabbos 32a D"H Hareini Brings a Brashis Rabbah that accuses Chava of causing Adam to sin, thus woman need a Tikun for what she did.


The Gemarah in BM 59a (and is paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf) says

2. (f) (Rav): Anyone who follows his wife's counsel falls to Gehinom - we learn from Achav.


Rav Chaim,

Here are my responses to the two points quoted:

1. There is no question that Chava was guilty of placing a stumbling block in front of her husband. For that she got punished. Adam however, chose to sin. However, I admit that from the pashtus of the text (×’, ×™×–) it appears that his sin was in fact listening to his wife. That being, I guess I stand corrected.

2. How do you understand On ben Peleh?

I think it's understandable that there are times when one should listen to his wife and times when he shouldn't. When yes and when no I don't have that black and white as of now. After all, if the Dor Deah would have listen to their wives, we wouldn't have suffered from the Egel Hazahav. That was a matter of spirituality, not worldly matters, so why should the men have listened to their wives according to you?

Tzarich Iyun,

Mordechai

quote:

(h) Answer #1: In matters of the house, listen to her, not regarding worldly matters.

(i) Answer #2: In worldly matters, listen to her, not regarding spiritual matters.

Does the gemara reconcile whether or not it is good to listen to one's wife regarding worldly matters?

The answer seems simple: A man should listen to his wife when her ideas make sense! (And in that sense, he is also listening to himself.)

quote:

answer seems simple: A man should listen to his wife when her ideas make sense!

This summary matches what I heard Rabbi Reisman say over in his Motzei Shabbos Live satellite-broadcast shiur a few weeks ago.

His subject was dreams, and when answers came to rabbis in dreams which were recorded.

His summary seemed to very much be that if "sleeping on a problem" permits one to come to an insight or an answer, if the answer makes sense, we can rely upon the waking logic.

Quote "2. How do you understand On ben Peleh?

I think it's understandable that there are times when one should listen to his wife and times when he shouldn't. When yes and when no I don't have that black and white as of now. After all, if the Dor Deah would have listen to their wives, we wouldn't have suffered from the Egel Hazahav. That was a matter of spirituality, not worldly matters, so why should the men have listened to their wives according to you?"

Good question. And the other side of On you have Korach's wife convincing him. I think that there are two things we can say here which both are true. 1) There is two types of taking advice, one is hearing from others so to give yourself different looks at the situation, but at the end, you're the one that makes the last decision. those lower than you might have good ideas, but also not so good, so it's up to you to choose what's the best and the buck stops there. The second one is going to a superior. Like if you go to a Gadol (or even a doctor.) you might not have to agree with what he says or completely understand it completely, but you'll put your faith in their opinion that their right regardless of what you think.

Thus the Gemarah in BM is telling us, not that you can never get an opinion from your wife, but that after the opinion you must make the final call what is correct, like the first way, but not accept her opinion on face value and rely on "well she told me so" like Adam said.

2) We can say that there are two different types of situations that you need advice for. The first is a clear cut case what is right and what's wrong, like the case of On or the Eigel. It was just because of people's Yetzer Harah was pulling them in the wrong direction. Thus there is no real decision here, it's just a matter to show them how they're doing bad and how destructive it is. But a second scenario that both are trying to do what is right, it's just a difference of opinion what that is. In that case, the husband is more of an expert of what that is, therefore he shouldn't reffer to his wife, but rather the opposite.

Quote" Does the gemara reconcile whether or not it is good to listen to one's wife regarding worldly matters?"

No, so it's a Machlokes between the 2 L'shonos (versions.) Usually we say that the second version is more halachicly accepted (especially here where there is no lenient or stringent view.)

Behind every great man is a woman saying "i told you so" "if not for me...."

David, and all whom it concerns.

We have shown that women can and can not be a rabbi. through using the same text. I quoted the same area of the Talmud (sotah) as you david the only difference. i pointed out the other view that, acknowldge women can study torah. thoughout the talmud the rabbis aruge the issue of women learning Torah. and people tend to quote one side without making mention of what the other rabbi.

as well I am not a rabbi though the rabbis i know like me are indifferent to the whole matter and could accpet a women getting semkaih if it is accpeted by the whole community and not somthing a regenede rabbi decide he would do.


a person who exempt from doing somthing but does it, he is called a chasid. I have to relook that one up in the talmud.

I don't even began to understand why a woman want semkiah for what purpose to learn torah she can do that with semkiah to teach and to consoule all this she can do without being a rabbi. so i think it soley for the sake of a title. which goes into the conept of vanity however that is not the question being raised here. rather the question is what prevents a women from being a rabbi. and frankly nothing other then the accpetence of the community...

quote:

Originally posted by Mack K:
David, and all whom it concerns.
... rather the question is what prevents a women from being a rabbi. and frankly nothing other then the acceptance of the community...

Mack,

I hope you will not be offended, but personally I think you are overlooking a major aspect of the title "Rabbi". A Rabbi is not only a community leader, but also a discussion maker. It is well known that when Reb Moshe Feinstein ztl gave smicha, he would write his phone number on the back of the shtar.He clearly realized that these young Rabbis would be asked question that our out of their league on a regular basis and therefore he wanted to make it easy (or better yet - understood) to contact him.

If women are given Smicha, what are they supposed to say when they are approached by a congregant requesting a pasak? "Sorry, but I'm not halachicly allowed to paskin"!? Perhaps they should get used to the all to often used one liner, "Go ask your local Orthodox Rabbi""! {"I thought I just did!"}

Furthermore, even if we say that women Rabbis could get away with the above, don't you think we should worry about misunderstandings in the future (I.E. Forgetting that the halacha is that women can't paskin)? How many halachas have been instituted by Chazal so that the halacha shouldn't be forgotten? For instance, washing for bread.


Kach LiDeiti,

Magedman

I am not offend in fact your words are dear to me and i do agree. it does concern me gravely if it becomes an accpeted thing where women are given semkiah what will happen next. However I can not allow my emotions to rule me in such matters.

we are taught to make a fence around the Torah however we should not make it so high that we or others can not live by them as if it was for it is a fence to distance Israel from error. if we are not careful by speaking of a fence as torah base we can cause others to error for R'Natan taught that this is the very reason which lead to eating the tree of knowldge.

B"H
Mack,

You wrote: "...a person who is exempt from doing something but does it, he is called a chasid."

Actually, the quote from the Jerusalem Talmud (Berakhos) is this: "...a person who is exempt from doing something but does it, he is called a 'hediot' - commoner."

Where a person takes upon himself stringent practices that are within the scope of accepted halacha, he is called a "yachid." (Jerusalem Talmud, ibid.) A "Chasid" is a pious person, who usually has an unblemished record from his youth upwards. The Gemara mentions very few people that had this title, and I think one of them was Rav Yoseph, or Rav Yehudah.

Mack, where did you see in Sotah that a woman can learn Torah?

David

quote that goes something like this" Adam said Chva told him so''

Someone once said that Chava was decieved concerning the fruit, whereas Adam deliberately ate it. if that is true, then Adam didn't say his wife told him so. And if it is true that men are abstract thinkers and women tend not to be, then Adam must have calculated before he ate the fruit that Chava would die and he did not want to live without her.

Another point, Wisdom is called "She'' in Tanach.

B"H

Today, I had the privilege of driving with Rav Aberjel (Av Beis Din of the Court at Beersheva) in his car while en route to Beersheva. We discussed the subject of women being Rabbis, among other topics, and I must say that this great Rabbi enlightened my mind! His opinion is that a woman can actually be a Rabbi (without the title), and also teach and instruct men, given that some women are more knowledgeable than men are in the matter of the Torah, and may have a natural gift or ability to instruct. He cited the examples of Veloria, the wife of Rabbi Meir, who was very erudite and adept in her studies. He also cited Miriam, the prophetess, and Yael, the wife of Hever, and especially, Devorah! These women all had exceptional knowledge. Therefore, he concluded, that if the public would agree to have a woman preside over them, and to instruct them in matters of G-d's holy Law, this would be permissible. He added that, in such cases, she would not be permitted to sit in the shul where is the designated place for men to sit, but rather, in the "women's section" (azeres nashim), teaching from that place.

These statements by him caused me to reconsider my approach to this subject altogether. He also cited Haran's commentary regarding the female judge, Devorah, showing that it would be permissible to have a woman judge over the people of Israel, according to the injunctions given in the Torah, if the public did not oppose to her acting as judge over them.

When I questioned Rav Aberjel about how the Talmud says, "He who teaches his daughter Torah, teaches her frivolity," he replied:

"This refers to when she studies the Torah in a half-hearted manner."

Meaning, that if a woman would want to escape from frivolity, she must be competent in the Torah in all of its aspects and fine-points. He never said that women were incapable of abstract thought.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

quote:

Originally posted by Raybin:
quote that goes something like this" Adam said Chva told him so''

Really,when Hashem asked Adam if he ate from the tree from which He commanded him not to eat the only response He got from Adam was a complaint about his wife's nonkosher cooking.

\ "The woman that you gave to me to be with me-she gave me of the tree and I ate."

B"H
Raybin,

I assume that was supposed to be a joke.

Speaking on a more serious note, what do you think of Rabbi Aberjel's view of female Rabbis?

David

Quote "His opinion is that a woman can actually be a Rabbi (without the title), and also teach and instruct men, given that some women are more knowledgeable than men are in the matter of the Torah, and may have a natural gift or ability to instruct. He cited the examples of Veloria, the wife of Rabbi Meir, who was very erudite and adept in her studies. He also cited Miriam, the prophetess, and Yael, the wife of Hever, and especially, Devorah!"

The point is, are these the rule or the exception. This is the reason the Shulchon orech said "MOST women" cannot. Thus, as the general rule, you shouldn't teach your daughter Gemarah for that reason. If the girl is extra special and she sees she picks up by her own and she understands it well, and she's not by nature a frivolous person, then they can do it. Again, this is the exception to the rule. To make this mainstream and to expect this from the average girl or above average girl is not good.

(P.S. even Bruriah wife of Rav Meir had a tragic end because of this in one version in the Gemarah Avodah Zara 18b and is paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

(h) Version #2: R. Meir fled to Bavel out of shame over his wife (who succumbed to temptation and killed herself out of shame).

See Rashi there for the whole story.

As far as woman that do learn, it is Pashut in Sotah 21a that their reward is a lot less than if they would help their husband and sons to learn.

(a) (Mishnah): Some merit can suspend (the punishment of drinking the water of the Sotah) for 3 years ...

(b) Question: Which merit? 1. Suggestion: If merit of Torah - but a woman is not commanded!

(c) Answer #1: The merit of Mitzvos. (d) Objection: The merit of Mitzvos does not protect so much!

etc.

(e) Answer #2 (Ravina): Really, the merit of Torah can give a woman 3 years.

1. Even though she is not commanded to learn - since she brings her sons to learn Chumash and Mishnah, and misses her husband when he is learning, she shares in their reward.