Orthodox Institute Holds Graduation Ceremony for Female Rabbis
moshe
Jay Lapidus wrote:
> And what is particularly pathetic is that
> this institution appears to be employing underhand tactics to reach
> its objective, hiding behind the veil of halacha instead of stating
> its aims clearly.
****************
"Hiding behind the veil of halacha"?
What in the heck does that mean?
If the position of "rabbi" was man-made,
of non-Biblical origin, then man is
free to revise the qualifications for that
man-made position any time he wants.
Excuse me, I should have said:
If the position of "rabbi" was people-made,
of non-Biblical origin, then people are
free to revise the qualifications for that
people-made position any time they want.
Binyomin Kaplan
moshe wrote:
> It was stated in an article that Jay Lapidus excerpted in a post::
>
> > And what is particularly pathetic is that
> > this institution appears to be employing underhand tactics to reach
> > its objective, hiding behind the veil of halacha instead of stating
> > its aims clearly.
>
> ****************
>
> "Hiding behind the veil of halacha"?
> What in the heck does that mean?
>
> If the position of "rabbi" was man-made,
> of non-Biblical origin, then man is
> free to revise the qualifications for that
> man-made position any time he wants.
Is this a sincere request for information
or are you being sarcastic?
Binyomin
j e rosenbaum
which institute is this?
Micha Berger
: where is the rest of the article?
: which institute is this?
Yateid Neeman is the US's most popular chareidi tabloid, not an institute. Jay
also deleted the more informative portion of the article. Yes, it's pretty
bad and loaded journalism -- dripping with sarcasm. However, the one or two
things it says of value about why O Jewry never did this before might have
been of interest.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 21-Oct-99: Chamishi, Lech-Lecha
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 56b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
j e rosenbaum
>On 21 Oct 1999 18:03:58 GMT, j e rosenbaum <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>: where is the rest of the article?
>: which institute is this?
>Yateid Neeman is the US's most popular chareidi tabloid, not an institute.
sorry, i was wondering which institute held the graduation ceremony.
janet
j e rosenbaum
>sorry, i was wondering which institute held the graduation ceremony.
okay, someone answered in email that it was nishmat.
can anyone update me on the current status of women decisors?
drisha has already graduated people, but afaik they don't have recognised
status, though there is a female rabbinical assistant at lincoln square
and possibly they work elsewhere in capacities as rabbis would.
i had thought that nishmat had also already graduated women who could be
poskot on niddah and possibly kashrus, but if this is the first, i suppose
not?
in any case, could someone who is against this whole phenomenon tell me
why they are? that is, someone not coming from the standpoint that
women shouldn't learn oral torah, since if you come from that view, the
reasoning is obvious.
janet
Jay Lapidus
It all began two years ago, when Emunah Henkin, director of
the Jerusalem-based Nishmat Center for Women's Studies, initiated a
program to train Orthodox women as halachic consultants.
According to Henkin the Nishmat program is nothing short of
revolutionary. For while Reform and Conservative women rabbis have
made "halachic" rulings for many years, "this is the first time in
history that [Orthodox] women are authorized [by Orthodox rabbis] to
answer questions in Jewish law. This is quite remarkable," says
Henkin.
In an interview with Jewish Week correspondent Michele Chabin,
Henkin expressed her humble belief that the graduates of the two-year
Nishmat program "are at least as well versed in the intricacies of
ritual purity laws as many rabbinic poseks."
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * - Rabbi Saul Lieberman z"l *
******************************
http://members.tripod.com/jlapidus ICQ# 2083554
Jay Lapidus
1999:
The New ‘Poseks’: Orthodox Women
By: Michele Chabin , Israel Correspondent
Go to this URL:
http://www.thejewishweek.com
then click on "archives," register (for free), and then use the above
info to find the article.
Jay Lapidus
wrote:
>Jay Lapidus wrote:
>
>> And what is particularly pathetic is that
>> this institution appears to be employing underhand tactics to reach
>> its objective, hiding behind the veil of halacha instead of stating
>> its aims clearly.
I did *not* write the above.
[snip]
Micha Berger
: drisha has already graduated people, but afaik they don't have recognised
: and possibly they work elsewhere in capacities as rabbis would.
The local authority on these matters is Jon Baker, as his wife attends
D'rishah. I assume he'll give a better informed answer.
However, I couldn't pass up making this clarification. The female Rabbinical
Assistant at Lincoln Square Synagogue teaches and advises laws of sexual
purity, as do these recent graduates of Nishmat. It's an important role, as
the alternative is that fewer women would observe these laws if they knew
they had to discuss intimate details with a man (their Rabbi).
However, the assistant is billed as an assistant. She teaches, advises, and
forwards questions to a Rabbi. To use the terminology suggested on Avodah
(where this topic is being heatedly argued), her role is close to one of a
paralegal, maintaining contact with the client and preparing the case for
the lawyer.
Nishmat is training women to be the decisor, without turning to a Rabbi any
more often than an LOR would. The domain would be limited, but the role is not
that of a para.
: i had thought that nishmat had also already graduated women who could be
: poskot on niddah and possibly kashrus, but if this is the first, i suppose
: not?
Yes, these are their first two graduates. The program has existed long enough
to educate them, though.
A couple of interesting, and irritating, points. First, Mrs Henken insists
that her graduates should not be called poskos, because change is best done
without doing more than necessary to draw attention. Second, they chose
niddah because there's sufficient need to have women in this role to provide
extra-justification for people who need it.
I find both points to be ploys, and while not quite dishonest, more marketing
oriented than I'd want to see in a religious innovation.
: in any case, could someone who is against this whole phenomenon tell me
: why they are? that is, someone not coming from the standpoint that
: women shouldn't learn oral torah, since if you come from that view, the
: reasoning is obvious.
I'm not so much against, as worried.
First, as we saw already in the Jewish Week article, those who want O halachah
to be a secondary value system to feminism will use this to launch us down a
slippery slope. (Watch what happened in C, where the concept of woman Rabbis
has lead to the notion of female witnesses -- which isn't even defensable
within the C system.)
Second, it reinforces the idea that O Judaism is structured like other
religions, primarily in the synagogue and centered around clergy. If we
were properly propogating the idea that Judaism is centered on the home,
perhaps more people would be trying to seek spirituality there, instead
of striving to become quasi-clergy.
Solomon writes that "the honor of the king's daughter in inside". This is
taken by Maimonides (to an extreme we would never find acceptable today) as
well as many many others as a halachic priority. While it sounds like it's
saying "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen", if you really look at how
the expression is used, it's about the notion that we need people to build
religious homes. IOW, it's not about where women shouldn't be, it's about
where we need them to be -- at the forefront of the center of Judaism.
Isaiah uses an erotic metaphor to describe the messianic era, "female shall
encircle the male". According to Hirsch (note the age of this idea, it's at
least a century before the feminist movement, apologetics is not involved)
this means that Judaism, with its center on the home and family will give
structure to the west (sons of Japeth), who focus on honor and state. (The
word for male in this context is "gever", from the same context as "gibor",
hero.)
This notion of gender roles: woman building the clan, man building
the state, goes far to explain a number of gender differences. For example,
why men are counted toward a minyan but not women. Becuase a minyan is
(as the exegesis implies) an "eidah" a miniture of the Jewish People as
a whole. Similarly, the legal system is male territory. And, Hirsch notes
that the only laws that conform to the rule of "women are exempt from time
restricted mitzvos" are those time-restricted mitzvos that also reflect on
man's relationship to the outside world.
Women too have to deal with the outside world; c.f. Solomon's woman of valor
(Eishes Chayil) who is at the gates selling her wares. However, the religious
role Jewish tradition gives her isn't about it relating to the outside, it's
about building a solid inside. "The honor of the king's daughter is inside."
I wouldn't want to throw that out the window without some proof that the
advantages outweigh the cost. With all that said, I'm pretty sure they do.
If we act with caution.
Micha Berger
: The Yated article is based on a New York Jewish Week story...
See also part of an article by Chanah Henkin (the school's dean) on the subject
at http://www.virtual.co.il/channels/torah/feature2.htm
The Yated article serves more to show the yellowness of the Yated than any
substance. While it does make a weak point or two, they chose sarcasm rather
than accurately presenting the Chareidi (and many mod-O) objections to the
program. FWIW, someone posted the article in full to Avodah at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n051.html#10>. To be fair to myself,
if Avodah were moderated, as opposed to membership limited, I wouldn't have
let it through.
rkaiser1
> First, as we saw already in the Jewish Week article, those who want
> O halachah to be a secondary value system to feminism will use this
> to launch us down a slippery slope. (Watch what happened in C,
> where the concept of woman Rabbis has lead to the notion of
> female witnesses -- which isn't even defensable within the C system.)
To be fair, even Orthodoxy does allow women to act as witnesses in some
cases. Secondly, in Israel some Orthodox rabbinic courts now accept women
as witnesses by using an obvious legal fiction: The court technically
dismisses itself, women come in and give testimony, and then the court
reconvenes. It is a nudge-nudge, wink-wink way of changing halakha, which I
do understand, but I now find to be intellectually dishonest. Finally, note
that Conservative Judaism does allow women to be witnesses, even though this
is discouraged. See Robert Gordis's "The Dynamics of Judaism"; Also see
the teshuvot by Joel Roth and Mayer Rabinowitz in "On the Ordination of
Women as Rabbis".
--- summary of Conservative position ---
According to the Talmud, women are ineligible to serve as witnesses
(edut). This is derived from two places in Deuteronomy: 19:15, which deals
with witnesses, but does not specify gender, and 19:17, which indicates the
male gender, but is concerned with litigants, not witnesses. However
Conservative rabbis understand that the presence of Biblical quotes in a
Talmudic proof does not always constitute proof that the injunction is
biblical; It is often an attempt to associate some existing practice with
the Bible in order to give the practice authority.
The Rambam (Moses Maimonides) himself rejected the Talmud's logic in
this case, and instead offered a different reason as to why women should
not be allowed to serve as witnesses. He bases the prohibition on Deut.
17:16, which describes witnesses with the word 'edhim', which is masculine.
Thus the Rambam rules that all witnesses must be male. However the Kesef
Mishneh rejects this proof, as the Torah generally uses masculine plural
verbs when it wishes to include both men and women. The Shulkhan Arukh
simply states that a women may not be witnesses, and does not claim that
this is a biblical law. Thus, although the prohibition is time honored, its
origin is unclear, and some believe that the reasons for enforcing it are
not valid. Moreover, the rabbis did decide to permit women to serve as
witnesses in some cases. See Talmud Bavli, Tractate Rosh HaShanah, 22a;
Torah Temimah, Devarim 19:15, note 44; and Encyclopedia Judaica Vol. 16,
p.586 for a number of such cases.
The areas from which women were excluded from testifying were those in
which they were not knowledgeable or reliable due to lack of experience or
interest. In today's world, where women have the same education as men,
this is no longer the case. Therefore, these considerations persuaded six
members of the CJLS to vote to reclassify the status of women vis-a-vis edut
based on the realities of our era. This became an official position of the
CJLS in 1974. (Aaron Blumenthal, "The Status of Women in Jewish Law",
Conservative Judaism, 31:3 (Spring 1977), pp.24-40.
This view was given further halakhic support by in 1983 by Rabbi Joel
Roth in his teshuva supporting women as rabbis, published in "The Ordination
of Women as Rabbis. He writes that allowing women to be become witnesses
can be done by the traditional halakhic concept of shinui haitim (the times
have changed). "It is simply inconceivable to me that anyone could cogently
argue that modern women are generally unreliable as witnesses, that the
entire class of women should be disqualified...I recommend therefore, the
exercise by the faculty of the ultimate systematic right of the learned who
are committed to Halachah to openly and knowingly abrogate the prohibition
against women serving as witnesses. This is the ultimate Halachically
warranted act. It is not a non-Halachic act" ("The Ordination of Women as
Rabbi",p.171)
However, most Conservative rabbis, including Rabbi Roth, currently
affirm this only as a theoretical opinion, because an overriding concern of
Conservative Judaism is Jewish unity. This change would result in most
Orthodox Jews refusing to recognize the legitimacy of many Conservative
marriages and divorces, and could lead to many children (unfairly) being
tagged as mamzerim (illegitimate) by the Orthodox community.
The balance between doing what is intellectually right, and striving to
maintain Jewish unity is not easy, especially since the Reform movement
keeps pulling further to the left (no kosher witnesses required, patrilineal
descent, no ketubot at marriage, no gittin at divorces) and because the
Orthodox movement keeps pulling further to the right (denying the legitimacy
of all non-Orthodox rabbis and witnesses, denying the legitimacy of all
non-Orthodox marriages, insisting on ever more unwarranted strictures for
marriage, divorce, etc.). The Conservative movement seeks to find ways to
keep some semblance of Jewish unity, so that at least the traditional wing
of Reform, the Modern wing of Orthodoxy, and the entire Conservative
movement can still be one people. One example of a Conservative compromise
is in the area of weddings: A growing Conservative egalitarian minhag is to
use Ketubot (the wedding document) with spaces for four witnesses to sign:
Two men, and two women. This satifies all halakhic requirements.
-----
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Joel N. Shurkin
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On 21 Oct 1999 20:34:29 GMT, j e rosenbaum <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
> : drisha has already graduated people, but afaik they don't have recognised
> : status, though there is a female rabbinical assistant at lincoln square
> : and possibly they work elsewhere in capacities as rabbis would.
>
> The local authority on these matters is Jon Baker, as his wife attends
> D'rishah. I assume he'll give a better informed answer.
>
> However, I couldn't pass up making this clarification. The female Rabbinical
> Assistant at Lincoln Square Synagogue teaches and advises laws of sexual
> purity, as do these recent graduates of Nishmat. It's an important role, as
> the alternative is that fewer women would observe these laws if they knew
> they had to discuss intimate details with a man (their Rabbi).
>
>
\
snipped the rest.
Ok, now you've gone and done it. You've produced the first message I have
saved so I can read it slowly offline. Just what I needed : )
j
--
You need to wear nice underwear.
John Turturo, "The Illuminator"
j e rosenbaum
>Yes, these are their first two graduates. The program has existed long enough
>to educate them, though.
(eight.)
>A couple of interesting, and irritating, points. First, Mrs Henken insists
>that her graduates should not be called poskos, because change is best done
>without doing more than necessary to draw attention.
it's a good assessment of the situation, and i don't think it's untrue:
this is the most gradual step possible, and things needn't proceed beyond
this point.
>Second, they chose
>niddah because there's sufficient need to have women in this role to provide
>extra-justification for people who need it.
again, it's a good assessment of the situation and very true. women
decisors -are- needed in this area. as a woman, i think they may be
needed in other areas (kashrus is another), but not as vitally.
>I find both points to be ploys, and while not quite dishonest, more marketing
>oriented than I'd want to see in a religious innovation.
i don't mean this as a cynical statement at all, but i really don't think
there's a difference. "political ploys" are intellectual constructs to
find the best possible case. when someone wants to test a law, they
pick the most clear-cut case and advocate for it, rather than one with
extra complicating details. eventually, the process stops.
i don't think that your above two points are any different from picking
the best possible women for the training. had any of the women been
single or done anything the least bit non-conformist, the case would
have been weaker. in this way, we test the proposition, "can women
of the best possible sort reach halachic decisions in an area men have
some disadvantage in?"
maybe in a few decades, another proposition will be tested, such as
"can the best possible women reach halachic decisions in an area men
have no disadvantage in?"
who knows what the outcome will be, but i'm not sure there's reason for
concern.
>First, as we saw already in the Jewish Week article, those who want O halachah
>to be a secondary value system to feminism will use this to launch us down a
>slippery slope.
i see your point, but i disagree with the notion of "secondary value system."
halacha has many possible outcomes, and mediating values will always
intervene. this is a huge huge question, though, and i may try to start
a separate thread on the topic because i think it's extremely interesting.
>(Watch what happened in C, where the concept of woman Rabbis
>has lead to the notion of female witnesses -- which isn't even defensable
>within the C system.)
the conservative rabbi at hillel explained this to me, though neither of
us had time for a long explanation, which may come over shabbos or next
week. his explanation was that the reasons for women's exclusion from
eidut have expired now that women occupy secular positions of great
responsibility and are no longer influenced by their husbands in public
matters in the way they once were. (this is my example, but in the
first few decades of suffrage, women voted exactly like their husbands
did. now, they vote as differently as one might expect within a couple.
(at least, if they're voting the same way, it's mostly attributable to
their similarity.))
i would be really interested to hear arguments against these. i know he
was oversimplifying the issue, of course, as we were in the middle of
a hallway and others had come to ask him questions, so i don't claim
this is the whole question.
i plan to reread what i have read on the issue, but if anyone wants to
give me questions to ask him and sharpen the position, i would be
grateful.
>Second, it reinforces the idea that O Judaism is structured like other
>religions, primarily in the synagogue and centered around clergy. If we
>were properly propogating the idea that Judaism is centered on the home,
>perhaps more people would be trying to seek spirituality there, instead
>of striving to become quasi-clergy.
actually, i would argue that it does just the opposite.
judaism is all-encompassing, as is halacha. recognising that halachic
decisions can stem from the experience in the home is a huge step towards
underlining the home's importance. to compare: this is very different
from creating women cantors, which really would underline the importance
of synagogue, specifically. similarly, it's different from women's
tefillah groups.
someone rabbis love to cite on these types of issues is carol gilligan.
she wrote a book called _a different voice_ which shows that women make
moral decisions differently from men. her conclusion, though, is that
psychology which derives from male models may not describe the experiences
of women, or prescribe what they should do, because the men just don't
have the rapport with women. the corollary to this conclusion is that
halachic decisions made in women's domains which come only from men may
not be as well-suited to women as those which come from women.
janet
mei...@qqqerols.com
jero...@hcs.harvard.edu (j e rosenbaum) posted:
>again, it's a good assessment of the situation and very true. women
>decisors -are- needed in this area. as a woman, i think they may be
>needed in other areas (kashrus is another), but not as vitally.
You're saying it would be easier to talk to a woman about keeping
kosher than to a man??
>matters in the way they once were. (this is my example, but in the
>first few decades of suffrage, women voted exactly like their husbands
>did.
How would one know this?
> now, they vote as differently as one might expect within a couple.
>(at least, if they're voting the same way, it's mostly attributable to
>their similarity.))
>janet
mei...@QQQerols.com
Remove the QQQ
and I'll get back to you.
Alexis Rosoff
As previously mentioned, this programme (Nishmat's) is fairly limited.
Midreshet Lindenbaum claims to have a similar programme for training women
poskot in the areas of taharat hamishpacha, kashrut, and other
home-related rituals. This is what they say on their web page anyway. When
it comes to taharat hamispacha, this is definitely a good idea; many women
are nervous and embarrassed about talking about these things at all, much
less to a man.
As for the general issue of Orthodox women `rabbis'... I don't think it
will happen any time soon. (I won't say never. Nothing's completely
impossible.) But it's an interesting question.
What I definitely don't consider likely is that Orthodoxy will give women
smicha in the traditional sense. However, let's think more broadly. What
is a rabbi? He has a pretty wide and varied role, and I do think that
within that role, there is a wide range of activities in which women can
and should be involved. I think it would cross a line if women led prayer
services, or performed weddings. But a rabbi's function is not only to
perform ceremonies. He is meant to be the Jewishly-learned man of the
community, who can dispense advice. Within that realm, I think there's
definitely room for women. Learning as the province of the man is very
much tradition rather than law; Modern Orthodox institutions today see no
problem with women studying Talmud.
The Orthodox community should expand on that. One of the main reasons I'm
still Conservative (the other having to do with the Orthodox tendency to
think halachic development ended with the Shulchan Aruch) is Orthodoxy's
slow progress with regards to women's education and learning. Look at the
shiurim list for orthodox synagogues, even many modern ones: separate
women's and men's shiurim, and never nearly as many or nearly as good
quality ones for the women. And not opening up the opportunities for women
leads to a vicious circle. They don't get interested, so shul leadership
thinks there isn't demand, so they keep offering the same limited
selection. Women's seminaries or midrashas generally don't offer the same
level of education as men's yeshivas either.
Women do need to be educated well in Jewish thought and tradition. We
don't keep them barefoot in the kitchen any more, and if they're going to
learn secular ways (which they do, and should!) they need Jewish learning
in equal depth to complement this. Although I'm not really of that
hashkafa, I support the idea of Torah u'Madah: that secular and Torah
learning complement each other. Otherwise, they see secular philosophy and
learning, but know very little of the Jewish thought that can answer the
same questions, and have little to tie them to Judaism other than ritual.
Alexis
--
|\ _.,,---,._ `Don't let go
/, `.-'`' -. ;-;;._ you've got a reason to live.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Can't forget, we only get what we give.'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) -- The New Radicals
Joe Slater
>>again, it's a good assessment of the situation and very true. women
>>decisors -are- needed in this area. as a woman, i think they may be
>>needed in other areas (kashrus is another), but not as vitally.
mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>You're saying it would be easier to talk to a woman about keeping
>kosher than to a man??
If I were a woman, I'd certainly say so. Firstly, people are often
more comfortable talking to someone of the same gender. Secondly,
women are more likely to have practical experience of running a kosher
kitchen. I, for instance, have only vague memories of kashering liver.
I could tell someone how to do it but you can't compare this to
someone who does it every week and can describe things with the
vividness taht comes from regular experience.
jds
j e rosenbaum
>You're saying it would be easier to talk to a woman about keeping
>kosher than to a man??
no. it's just the reality that men don't tend to deal as much with the
practicalities of certain kinds of issues. i can't think of a specific
question i would rather ask of a woman who deals with things on a daily
basis in addition to knowing the theory, but i have had them.
>>matters in the way they once were. (this is my example, but in the
>>first few decades of suffrage, women voted exactly like their husbands
>>did.
>How would one know this?
a statistically-relevant poll was done of couples.
and then i read it in an academic book in history class.
if you would like, i will get the cite.
janet
mei...@qqqerols.com
jero...@hcs.harvard.edu (j e rosenbaum) posted:
>mei...@QQQerols.com writes:
>>You're saying it would be easier to talk to a woman about keeping
>>kosher than to a man??
>no. it's just the reality that men don't tend to deal as much with the
>practicalities of certain kinds of issues. i can't think of a specific
>question i would rather ask of a woman who deals with things on a daily
>basis in addition to knowing the theory, but i have had them.
OK, and thanks to Joe too.
>>>matters in the way they once were. (this is my example, but in the
>>>first few decades of suffrage, women voted exactly like their husbands
>>>did.
>>How would one know this?
>a statistically-relevant poll was done of couples.
>and then i read it in an academic book in history class.
>if you would like, i will get the cite.
How would it be possible for such a poll weed out women who voted
differently from their husbands, but loved them enough to say they
voted the same. (I'm sure in almost all cases they knew how their
husbands voted.) The official election polls have a track record for
keeping results secret but how many people during the first decades of
women's suffrage would place the same reliance on a pollster? And the
motivation for the women is so much less.
I suppose they must have an answer if they printed it in a book :) but
I don't see it yet.
j e rosenbaum
>How would it be possible for such a poll weed out women who voted
>differently from their husbands, but loved them enough to say they
>voted the same. (I'm sure in almost all cases they knew how their
>husbands voted.)
they could check this by polling only the men and seeing how different
the actual results were from the men's poll. if there is no statistical
difference, you can conclude that the women don't vote differently than
the men, as a group. (which is very different from how things are now.)
further, the fact that women would feel that it was a sign of love to
claim not to have an independent political opinion is a very different
attitude and proves my point in itself: a woman who was likely to lie
to a pollster in order to preserve face for her husband is more likely
to give public testimony of the sort she thinks her husband would approve of.
janet
Micha Berger
: Ok, now you've gone and done it. You've produced the first message I have
: saved so I can read it slowly offline. Just what I needed : )
I suspect the majority of readers disagree with my pontifications on the
subject. And Usenet is really a hard medium for conveying the emotional
content of an idea.
One more observation: It would have been much more convincing coming from
my wife, who chose O not on philosophical grounds, but because as a culture
we've managed to better preserve the traditional Jewish values of the
centrality of family and home. But she's far too pragmatic of a person to
wax poetic.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 22-Oct-99: Shishi, Lech-Lecha
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 57a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Haftorah
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger wrote:
>> First, as we saw already in the Jewish Week article, those who want
>> O halachah to be a secondary value system to feminism will use this
>> to launch us down a slippery slope. (Watch what happened in C,
>> where the concept of woman Rabbis has lead to the notion of
>> female witnesses -- which isn't even defensable within the C system.)
>
>
> To be fair, even Orthodoxy does allow women to act as witnesses in some
> cases. Secondly, in Israel some Orthodox rabbinic courts now accept women
Correct. But only in very defined situations (e.g. being sole witness to
an altercation where someone is injured, or seeing the abuse of a scholar,
or things that happened in the women's section of the synagogue, or any
situation where only a woman is competent in) [see Rema Choshen Mishpat
35:14 "aval yesh omrim d'takanat kadmonim hi b'mikrim she'ein anashim regilim
lihyot ......"]. Or in certain rabbinical ordinances (see: Meiri on Bava
Kamma 114b "isha v'katan ne'emanim bazeh LO MITORAT HA'EDUT". And even in
this situation it is what's called in halachic parlance "meysiach lefi
tumo"(where the court doesn't directly ask them questions but ferrets out
the answer very indirectly, almost "accidentally").
> as witnesses by using an obvious legal fiction: The court technically
> dismisses itself, women come in and give testimony, and then the court
> reconvenes. It is a nudge-nudge, wink-wink way of changing halakha, which I
> do understand, but I now find to be intellectually dishonest. Finally, note
Thta's the halacha, Mister Kaiser. It's called MEYSIACH LEFT TUMO . Surely
a great scholar like you (didn't you write the section in the talmudical
encyclopedia ENTZYKLOPEDIA TALMUDIT ? :-) knows the law backwards and
forwards.
> that Conservative Judaism does allow women to be witnesses, even though this
> is discouraged. See Robert Gordis's "The Dynamics of Judaism"; Also see
> the teshuvot by Joel Roth and Mayer Rabinowitz in "On the Ordination of
> Women as Rabbis".
To serve as a communal leader with a deep knowledge of Jewish law is one thing
(and no one who comes out of JTS with Conservative ordination comes remotely
close to this); serving as witnesses on a Bet Din is another.
Josh
Micha Berger
: no. it's just the reality that men don't tend to deal as much with the
If this is true, then perhaps we touched on a reason why Rabbanim are
traditionally male. A role of halachah is to bring the ideal into daily
(and not so day-to-day) activities. Perhaps therefore the dialectic is
better maintained if the representative of halachah is less pragmatic,
so as to keep the tension going.
Frankly, I don't believe it's true in general. It depends which are "the
certain kinds of issues".
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 22-Oct-99: Shishi, Lech-Lecha
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 57a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Haftorah
Micha Berger
: are nervous and embarrassed about talking about these things at all, much
: less to a man.
While I believe the problem is real, there are less radical ways of addressing
it. A simple example would be to educate women on how to be paras instead of
educating them on how to replace the Rav. Would a woman be too shy to ask a
question if she knew that unless the question were open-and-shut they'd be
ANONYMOUSLY brought to a man, the Rav, for resolution?
Fairlawn NJ has such a system. The mikvah takes calls to forward to the Rav,
in addition to the Rabbi's wife fielding such questions (as in most
neighborhoods). In addition, the mikvah has a cubbyhole system for anonmously
relaying physical evidence.
This requires an extra burden on the mikvah lady, as she now needs to know
how to collect as much relevent information as necessary to minimize needing
to call the Rav and the questioner back repeatedly.
They also, while I'm at it, require the mikvah ladies to attend courses on
how to identify signs of possible spousal abuse.
: I think it would cross a line if women led prayer
: services, or performed weddings.
In O, Rabbis don't lead services any more often than any other man.
Also, why do you consider "performing weddings" distinct? All a Rabbi who
officiates at a wedding does is make sure the ceremony is performed properly.
If there were some other way to be sure, his presence wouldn't be required.
So, it boils down to the same "rendering halachic decisions" role as what
you already willing to consider.
j e rosenbaum
>If this is true, then perhaps we touched on a reason why Rabbanim are
>traditionally male. A role of halachah is to bring the ideal into daily
>(and not so day-to-day) activities. Perhaps therefore the dialectic is
>better maintained if the representative of halachah is less pragmatic,
>so as to keep the tension going.
>Frankly, I don't believe it's true in general. It depends which are "the
>certain kinds of issues".
are you saying that for issues like kashrus, it's important that one who
knows only the ideal should be making decisions, but for issues like
tefillin and krias torah, it's not so important?
janet
j e rosenbaum
>They also, while I'm at it, require the mikvah ladies to attend courses on
>how to identify signs of possible spousal abuse.
that's really great. how long has this been done, and how common is it?
janet
Micha Berger
:>If this is true, then perhaps we touched on a reason why Rabbanim are
First, I said I don't think your premise is true, I was just playing with
its conclusions. I don't think a Rabbi should lose site of the pragmatic
side of things. Perhaps the problem would be with finding people who could
strike the proper balance.
Second, I don't understand why we switched from "tend to be less pragmatic,
more idealistic" to "knows only the ideal". Do you really believe men are
incapable of relating to the pragmatic universe altogether?
Third, I'm missing the distinction you're trying to make. If we value the
Rav's ability to insert the theoretical ideal into a pragmatic question, it
should be true for kashrus, tefillin, or Torah reading. However, no one
suggested women rule on O questions of the latter two. (Yet.)
Buenas Shabbat!
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 22-Oct-99: Shishi, Lech-Lecha
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 57a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Haftorah
Micha Berger
: that's really great. how long has this been done, and how common is it?
In the greater NY area such courses are common, and have been around for
about 5 years. Realize that there are so few mikvah ladies per town that one
course offering would mean a dozen or so mikva'os.
If you're interested, contact Ohel or Project Sarah.
j e rosenbaum
>While I believe the problem is real, there are less radical ways of addressing
>it. A simple example would be to educate women on how to be paras instead of
>educating them on how to replace the Rav. Would a woman be too shy to ask a
>question if she knew that unless the question were open-and-shut they'd be
>ANONYMOUSLY brought to a man, the Rav, for resolution?
there's definitely a huge advantage in being able to discuss the issues
face-to-face with someone one feels comfortable with.
under the system you describe, a woman may ask a question and get a
specific answer, but only that answer. if a woman may *discuss* the
question, she can start to learn more --- what if x or y or z were
different? --- and thus know whether there were instances when she
should have been asking more or fewer questions.
further, i think women can feel better about being involved in a system
which feels more like a women's sytem. it's the same impalpable reason
many women prefer women doctors: it's not just a question of modesty,
but there's just a greater sense of involvement and relation.
if you want to see what i'm talking about, find an old copy of _our
bodies, ourselves_ and read the introduction. these women were
publishing a basic book about women's health, as none had existed
before, unlike many books for men. they approached doctors (who were
almost exclusively male at the time) to ask basic self-care questions,
such as how to do breast self-examination, and the doctors would not
answer a single one of their questions, or would give them as little
information as possible.
nurses and midwives could help out somewhat, but naturally their knowledge
was limited, as they relied always on a male doctor for ultimate authority.
given that nearly every time i go to the doctor, i am given an
instructional pamphlet or thing to hang in my shower, i have a hard time
imagining how defeating it must feel like to have basic information
withheld from women by a male establishment, but this is how it was.
the reason why _our bodies, ourselves_ was written is because many
women felt confused and alienated from this system: the female nurses
they could talk to didn't know so much, and the male doctors they
couldn't talk to had all the information, and they felt unable to ask
questions.
>: I think it would cross a line if women led prayer
>: services, or performed weddings.
>In O, Rabbis don't lead services any more often than any other man.
i think that's her point: a woman could take a significant proportion
of a rabbi's duties without pushing forward the snowball. even if a
woman could answer questions, there's no reason she would have to be
shatz.
>Also, why do you consider "performing weddings" distinct? All a Rabbi who
>officiates at a wedding does is make sure the ceremony is performed properly.
>If there were some other way to be sure, his presence wouldn't be required.
>So, it boils down to the same "rendering halachic decisions" role as what
>you already willing to consider.
perhaps she thought that this necessitated that the one officiating at a
wedding be an eligible witness. (does it?)
janet
Micha Berger
: if a woman may *discuss* the
: question, she can start to learn more --- what if x or y or z were
: different? --- and thus know whether there were instances when she
: should have been asking more or fewer questions.
There are the women who teach kallah classes and taharas hamishpachah (family
purity) courses. Their role could be enlarged.
We're still not talking about the need for women to give halachic rulings.
And remember, need isn't the same as permissability. I'm pretty sure that
from a technical point of view, slippery slopes aside, a woman posekes who
isn't providing leadership to the community is fine. The Chinuch explicitely
prohibits DRUNK women from providing such rulings -- which seems to imply
woman can otherwise rule.
However, I don't think the need being used to override the concerns that others
will try to take us down a slippery slope actually requires innovation to be
addressed.
: i think that's her point: a woman could take a significant proportion
: of a rabbi's duties without pushing forward the snowball. even if a
: woman could answer questions, there's no reason she would have to be
: shatz.
As we see from the Jewish Week article, regardless of Chana Henkin's intent,
others are using this to blur the lines. Even R' Norman Lamm's address to
the graduates makes it clear that he sees this as the start of something
bigger.
: perhaps she thought that this necessitated that the one officiating at a
: wedding be an eligible witness. (does it?)
No. The witnesses are selected separately. In fact, the Rabbi should help
the couple choose valid witnesses. It really is an entirely supervisory
role.
mei...@qqqerols.com
jero...@hcs.harvard.edu (j e rosenbaum) posted:
>mei...@QQQerols.com writes:
>>How would it be possible for such a poll weed out women who voted
>>differently from their husbands, but loved them enough to say they
>>voted the same. (I'm sure in almost all cases they knew how their
>>husbands voted.)
>they could check this by polling only the men and seeing how different
>the actual results were from the men's poll. if there is no statistical
>difference, you can conclude that the women don't vote differently than
If you mean statistical difference between men and women (two
categories of this), first you don't have the actual results divided
by sex, and second, women have this additional reason to lie which is
stronger for the [researcher's] poll and much less so for the actual
voting.
>the men, as a group. (which is very different from how things are now.)
You've lost me. In a voting precinct that was 100% for one of two
candidates, one would know that the wives voted like the husbands, but
then again each husband voted like every other husband. If there were
only n votes for candidate b, and one found n/2 men who voted for b,
we couldn't know whether the other n/2 were those men's wives, or n/2
other wives. This could represent up to n/2 + n/2 = n women voting
opposite from their husbands.
If one found more or less than n/2 men voting for b, call it m, still
assuming the men answer the poll exactly the same as they voted, there
would be at least |m - n/2| x 2 women voting differently from their
husbands and possibly more.
The higher either n or |m - n/2|, the less we know about the women's
vote. Conversely, the lower n, the more uniform the vote was in
general, for reasons that could easily be related to issues other than
marriage, and would be unrelated wrt the men only.
>further, the fact that women would feel that it was a sign of love to
>claim not to have an independent political opinion is a very different
>attitude and proves my point in itself: a woman who was likely to lie
>to a pollster in order to preserve face for her husband is more likely
>to give public testimony of the sort she thinks her husband would approve of.
I suppose so. :) I'd totally lost track of the original point. (Which
I probably had no argument with. It was this factoid that bothered
me.)
Craig Winchell
I've been thinking about this ever since it was posted by Jay. I must say
that it gives one pause, looking at the various postings of interested
parties. However, I have come to the conclusion that I don't think it's
proper for non-rabbis to poskin shailas of any sort. As to taharas
hamishpacha questions, women should train themselves to feel comfortable
asking their rabbeim, and more rabbeim should attempt to become expert in
such things as checking bedikah cloths, rather than just understanding the
theoretical aspects or taharas hamishpacha.
In our own case, our rav received special training in examining bedikah
cloths. Even then, they have sometimes been fedexed across the country to
have certain aspects checked. I would hesitate to have a young
whippersnapper of any gender poskin a shaila for me, except if there were
an obvious answer which most people would know in the first place, but
which I don't know due to my lack of knowledge (the lack of which, I'm
sorry to say, I have in abundance).
Let's face it, in an observant community many questions can be answered by
any neighbor, since the answers to such questions are common knowledge,
although one personally may not know the answer. But specific shailas
about less well known subjects require experts, often not only in those
subjects but in related fields as well. For bedikah cloths, for instance,
I'd go to someone who has been examining them for years, someone with an
excellent reputation, whereas for an elementary kashrus problem, I'd either
look in a book or (if I were in a community) ask the easiest person to
reach who I feel would know the answer. And for a major kashrus problem,
I'd consult a rav with lots of expertise in the area.
I don't necessarily think that a woman who knows the theoretical aspects of
taharas hamishpacha would be a bad person to ask about elementary questions
in that regard, but I wonder whether that is really poskining a shaila, or
just making information available to someone who doesn't know the
information. For more major problems, I'd ask someone who had "been in the
business" for years. Perhaps if these women would apprentice to a rav with
well known expertise in the area, I wouldn't have such qualms about having
such shailas poskined by them.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
David Goldman
>hamishpacha questions, women should train themselves to feel comfortable
>asking their rabbeim, and more rabbeim should attempt to become expert in
>such things as checking bedikah cloths, rather than just understanding the
>theoretical aspects or taharas hamishpacha.
One wonders about how those new age feminists understand how Jewish
men and women have been dealing with questions of family purity for
4000 years without the female "counselors."
Alexis Rosoff
|> : I think it would cross a line if women led prayer
|> : services, or performed weddings.
|>
|> In O, Rabbis don't lead services any more often than any other man.
Well, I know other people lead the services (and this DOES depend on the
congregation, I have been to a couple of modern Orthodox synagogues where
this was the rabbi's job), but I was thinking of this within the role of
the rabbi. It is part of his role to conduct services, although this is
not his primary role.
|> Also, why do you consider "performing weddings" distinct? All a Rabbi who
|> officiates at a wedding does is make sure the ceremony is performed properly.
|> If there were some other way to be sure, his presence wouldn't be required.
|> So, it boils down to the same "rendering halachic decisions" role as what
|> you already willing to consider.
I was thinking of the act of publicly getting up in front of a room full
of people and conducting the service. That's what I think O is not yet
ready to accept--the idea of a woman getting up in front of the
congregation and acting as the leader. As long as the mechitza and
separation of sexes during the prayer service are part of O Judaism, such
visibly public roles are difficult for the community to accept as I see
it. (I'm not trying to start a huge fight about the mechitza. Although I
don't like it, what I object to most is the setup of particular
synagogues. And frankly, I think it's the least of women's issues within
Orthodoxy.)
mei...@qqqerols.com
ba...@XXXerols.com (Barbara) posted:
P&M
>On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:16:00 GMT, mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>>>they could check this by polling only the men and seeing how different
>>>the actual results were from the men's poll. if there is no statistical
>>>difference, you can conclude that the women don't vote differently than
>>
>>If you mean statistical difference between men and women (two
>>categories of this), first you don't have the actual results divided
>>by sex, and second, women have this additional reason to lie which is
>>stronger for the [researcher's] poll and much less so for the actual
>>voting.
>I *think* it goes like this: The researcher polls _only_ the _men_
>leaving the voting place. Ninety-five percent of them say they voted
>Republican. This figure is compared to the actual results of _all_
>the voters. If 95% of the total voters have voted Republican, then
>(assuming equal numbers of men and women voted) the women have voted
>the same as the men.
I know you wouldn't have snipped it if you'd realized how closely my
example reflects this. To make them match, set n to 10% instead of an
absolute number. YOU ARE actually assuming here that the men and
women voted the same. You are assuming what I wish to see proved. It's
possible 90% of the couples both voted R, 5% of the men voted R while
their wives voted D and 5% of the men voted D while their wives voted
R. (I put the example back at the bottom. See the two paragraphs AA
for another phrasing of my math in this case and 2 lines of analysis.)
> However, if the actual results show that only
>75% of the total vote was for Republicans while 95% of the men say
>they voted Republican, then women are voting differently than the men.
>The women were never asked, so they couldn't have lied.
So this case involves when the percentages don't match, but then they
voted differently. I'm willing to believe you can prove that, to a
certain extent. I haven't seen how one can prove they voted the same,
unless everyone voted the same. See the two paragraphs BB for the
arithmetic of this case and 3 lines of analysis.)
>Barbara
In a voting precinct that was 100% for one of two
candidates, one would know that the wives voted like the husbands, but
then again each husband voted like every other husband.
AA: If there were
only n votes for candidate b, and one found n/2 men who voted for b,
we couldn't know whether the other n/2 were those men's wives, or n/2
other wives. This could represent up to n/2 + n/2 = n women voting
opposite from their husbands. (Let n = 10% for the example above.)
BB If one found there were more or less than n/2 men voting for b,
call the difference m, still assuming the men answer the poll exactly
the same as they voted, there would be at least |m - n/2| x 2 women
voting differently from their husbands and possibly more. (With the
numbers above, this means n = 25% and m = 5% (That is, n = 100% -
75%, m = 100% - 95%). Then |m - n/2| x 2 = |5% - 12.5%| x 2 = 7.5% x
2 = 15%. 15% is the minimum number of women who voted differently
from their husbands. The maximum is 25%, I'm pretty sure, but
figuring the minimum wore me out.
BB The higher either n or |m - n/2| is, the less we know about the
women's vote, up to n = 50%. And in elections that are nearly 50-50,
no conclusions can be drawn.
AA Conversely, the lower n is, the more uniform the vote was in
general, for reasons that could easily be related to issues other than
marriage, and would definitely be unrelated wrt the men only.
Jonathan J. Baker
>On 22 Oct 1999 15:46:30 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>|> : I think it would cross a line if women led prayer
>|> : services, or performed weddings.
>|>
>|> In O, Rabbis don't lead services any more often than any other man.
>Well, I know other people lead the services (and this DOES depend on the
Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
being told how great he is.
>congregation, I have been to a couple of modern Orthodox synagogues where
>this was the rabbi's job), but I was thinking of this within the role of
>the rabbi. It is part of his role to conduct services, although this is
>not his primary role.
That was one of the objections raised in the Conservative debate on
ordaining women: rabbis have all these ancillary duties that require
a man: leading services, leining, being a witness at weddings.
In an Orthodox context that shouldn't be as much of a problem, because
generally O synagogues have a larger pool of men trained to do such
things, that the rabbi doesn't have to.
But I do know some synagogues where the rabbi leins most of the time,
and/or leads a lot of services.
--
Jonathan Baker | Marches-wan, marches-two,
jjb...@panix.com | March the months all through and through
Jay Lapidus
<7uu0vv$bs8$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
>aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
>the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
>being told how great he is.
My contract stipulates that I always get sh'lishi in Bekhukoti and
shishi in Ki Tavo. No one has ever complained.
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * - Rabbi Saul Lieberman z"l *
******************************
http://members.tripod.com/jlapidus ICQ #2083554
Harry Weiss
: On 24 Oct 1999 00:12:47 -0400, in article
:>Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
:>aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
:>the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
:>being told how great he is.
: My contract stipulates that I always get sh'lishi in Bekhukoti and
: shishi in Ki Tavo. No one has ever complained.
Does that mean you are the baal koreh?
: Jay Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET> ******************************
: | | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
: __ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
: | | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
: |__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * - Rabbi Saul Lieberman z"l *
: ******************************
: http://members.tripod.com/jlapidus ICQ #2083554
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Harry Weiss
: In <38111793....@ny.news.verio.net> ale...@li.net (Alexis Rosoff) writes:
:>On 22 Oct 1999 15:46:30 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
:>|> : I think it would cross a line if women led prayer
:>|> : services, or performed weddings.
:>|>
:>|> In O, Rabbis don't lead services any more often than any other man.
:>Well, I know other people lead the services (and this DOES depend on the
: Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
: aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
: the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
: being told how great he is.
that is very unusual, except for some Chassidishe places where the Rebbe
will always get an Aliyah. In the Chabad house where I usually daven on
Shabbos, the Rabbi rarely gets and Aliyah, and will even refuse an Aliyah
when he is the only Cohen citing a Shulchan Aruch Harav that a cohen can
be mochel on his aliyah.
:>congregation, I have been to a couple of modern Orthodox synagogues where
:>this was the rabbi's job), but I was thinking of this within the role of
:>the rabbi. It is part of his role to conduct services, although this is
:>not his primary role.
: That was one of the objections raised in the Conservative debate on
: ordaining women: rabbis have all these ancillary duties that require
: a man: leading services, leining, being a witness at weddings.
: In an Orthodox context that shouldn't be as much of a problem, because
: generally O synagogues have a larger pool of men trained to do such
: things, that the rabbi doesn't have to.
: But I do know some synagogues where the rabbi leins most of the time,
: and/or leads a lot of services.
Our Rabbi rarely leads services, but always layns. When is away it is
tough to find replacements.
: --
: Jonathan Baker | Marches-wan, marches-two,
: jjb...@panix.com | March the months all through and through
mei...@qqqerols.com
ba...@XXXerols.com (Barbara) posted:
NOt controversial enough to email a copy.
>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:39:21 GMT, mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>>In soc.culture.jewish on Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:50:59 -0400
>>ba...@XXXerols.com (Barbara) posted:
>>
>>P&M
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 19:16:00 GMT, mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>they could check this by polling only the men and seeing how different
>>>>>the actual results were from the men's poll. if there is no statistical
>>>>>difference, you can conclude that the women don't vote differently than
>>>>
>>>>If you mean statistical difference between men and women (two
>>>>categories of this), first you don't have the actual results divided
>>>>by sex, and second, women have this additional reason to lie which is
>>>>stronger for the [researcher's] poll and much less so for the actual
>>>>voting.
>>
>>>I *think* it goes like this: The researcher polls _only_ the _men_
>>>leaving the voting place. Ninety-five percent of them say they voted
>>>Republican. This figure is compared to the actual results of _all_
>>>the voters. If 95% of the total voters have voted Republican, then
>>>(assuming equal numbers of men and women voted) the women have voted
>>>the same as the men.
>>
>>I know you wouldn't have snipped it if you'd realized how closely my
>>example reflects this. To make them match, set n to 10% instead of an
>>absolute number. YOU ARE actually assuming here that the men and
>>women voted the same.
>No, I'm not *assuming* anything. I am, however, disregarding the
>mathematical formulations, math being something I do only under
>extreme duress. If you can explain in words how I am assuming that
>men and women voted the same in the situation I posed before you
>snipped it, please do so.
I was just going to say that I"ve made my point, and we could wait
until Janet got back. We don't even know for sure that Janet meant
exactly what you do, so that's another thing.
But since you encourage me, I'll try it in words with just a couple
numbers. I'm assuming everyone is married. If 95% of the vote was for
R and 95% of the men voted for R, it would mess up the 95% for all if
the women didn't have the same percentage. So they do have the same
percentage.
But those 5% of women who voted for D wouldn't have to be the same
ones whose husbands voted for D. They could all have husbands who
voted for R. And that means the 5% of men who voted for D didn't have
wives who voted for D, because all of them had husbands who voted for
R. (We assumed that in the previous sentence.)
So each of this two mismatched groups would be 5% totalling 10
percent, the maximum number of couples who voted differently. What
are the odds it would be near the maximum. I don't know. Is it random
or are there reasons why they would be voting the same or differently?
They'd be voting the same because supposedly that is what women were
supposed to do, but I am questioning whether they actually did it.
And all the other objections from the other posts.
>I'm going to skip the math, sorry :-( . Please don't wear yourself
>out doing mathematical analyses on my account. I will point out two
>things, however: (1) A survey of this kind would first use a broad
>analysis of how men vote as compared to women, not how husbands vote
>as compared to their wives.
That's a whole other topic IIUC compared to the issue that Janet
raised.
>It would then be determined how many
>voters are married versus single, and how large a gap exists between
>the genders. If the gap is large enough, then some wives must be
>voting differently from their husbands.
As I said, I can believe that one can show that husbands voted
differently from wives. Showing they voted the same is much harder.
>Statisticians have
>sophisticated formulae for these things. (2) Such results are always
>presented as being accurate to a certain percentile, plus or minus,
>and not as absolute.
I think that is an additional source of error, and comes when sampling
is used and not everyone is asked. I was assuming everyone was asked
and any sampling error would be in addition to the percentages I came
up with. I don't think I was using statistics at all in my last two
posts, although statisticians know the problems I was referring to, of
course.
>BTW, I doubt that women lying in order to please their husbands is a
>dilemma of the 1990s. My husband knows I often vote only to *cancel
>out* his vote (it's a politically *mixed* marriage :-)), and we don't
>qualify as generation x-ers by any means.
Of course. Janet referred to the first few decades. I would think
there was a period when women voted the same as their husbands because
they agreed with their husbands and that still continues but to a
lesser degree, but I assumed that Janet was referring to a time when
women might have done so to defer to their husbands, on the assumption
their husbands followed things more, or in the gentile world were the
leader of the family. If they were pretending to defer, because other
women were actually deferring or their own husbands wanted them to
vote like the husband did, it seems reasonable to me that they
wouldn't tell a surveyor otherwise. It's just looking for trouble.
>Barbara
>m&p
>_____
>Make the obvious correction to reply
mei...@qqqerols.com
<jlap...@my-deja.com> posted:
>On 24 Oct 1999 00:12:47 -0400, in article
><7uu0vv$bs8$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
>>Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
>>aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
>>the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
>>being told how great he is.
>My contract stipulates that I always get sh'lishi in Bekhukoti and
>shishi in Ki Tavo. No one has ever complained.
Try doing Ki Tavo every week and they will complain.
>Jay Lapidus
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> In <38111793....@ny.news.verio.net> ale...@li.net (Alexis Rosoff) writes:
>>On 22 Oct 1999 15:46:30 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>>|> : I think it would cross a line if women led prayer
>>|> : services, or performed weddings.
>>|>
>>|> In O, Rabbis don't lead services any more often than any other man.
>
>>Well, I know other people lead the services (and this DOES depend on the
>
> aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
OK. Where's the CANDID CAMERA ? :-) You've got to be joking !
This reminds me of the joke of the rebbe whose disciples are standing
around his bed thinking he's asleep. One says in a whisper, "He's a
tremendous tzaddik", the other says, "He's a great scholar", the third
says, "He's a tremendous giver of charity". The rebbe raises his head
and says, "And about my modesty you say nothing ?" :-)
Josh
> the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
> being told how great he is.
>
>>congregation, I have been to a couple of modern Orthodox synagogues where
>>this was the rabbi's job), but I was thinking of this within the role of
>>the rabbi. It is part of his role to conduct services, although this is
>>not his primary role.
>
> That was one of the objections raised in the Conservative debate on
> ordaining women: rabbis have all these ancillary duties that require
> a man: leading services, leining, being a witness at weddings.
>
> In an Orthodox context that shouldn't be as much of a problem, because
> generally O synagogues have a larger pool of men trained to do such
> things, that the rabbi doesn't have to.
>
> But I do know some synagogues where the rabbi leins most of the time,
> and/or leads a lot of services.
>
Joel N. Shurkin
hjw...@netcom19.netcom.com wrote on 10/24/99 1:29 AM:
> : Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
> : aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
> : the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
> : being told how great he is.
>
> that is very unusual, except for some Chassidishe places where the Rebbe
> will always get an Aliyah. In the Chabad house where I usually daven on
> Shabbos, the Rabbi rarely gets and Aliyah, and will even refuse an Aliyah
> when he is the only Cohen citing a Shulchan Aruch Harav that a cohen can
> be mochel on his aliyah.
>
>
>
>
> Our Rabbi rarely leads services, but always layns. When is away it is
> tough to find replacements.
>
>
At the risk of shocking some, at our C congregation our rabbi (a woman)
rarely leads the service. It is done almost entirely by members. In fact the
participatory nature was one of the reasons it was formed 10 years ago, and
one of the reasons I joined it. I think she spent less than 10 minutes of
the 3-1/2 hours yesterday. She did none of the Torah reading (the readers
included women) and some of the prayers were done by children. The Ashrai
seems to have been permanently assigned to the second graders at the nearby
Schechter school who are simply splendid. You're shocked, right? Tell me
you're shocked.
j
Jacob Love
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On 24 Oct 1999 05:30:08 GMT, in article
><7uu5h0$q1h$3...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
>Harry Weiss <hjw...@netcom19.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>: My contract stipulates that I always get sh'lishi in Bekhukoti and
>>: shishi in Ki Tavo. No one has ever complained.
>>
>
>every year. I'm tempted when there's a "Hatsaf" in the congregation
>to suggest that the gabbai give him one of those aliyas!
>
>Anyway, Harry, as the Baal Qoreh, I do emend the text to read,
>"Vaydabber haShem el JEPD lemor."
>
>Rafael might read, "Vaydabber Mishehu..."
>Robert might read, "Vaydabber haShem el Robert lemor: kulam shaqranim
>hem."
>Shelly might read, "And the LORD said in English to Moses."
>I might also read, "Vaydabber Schimmel..."
>Josh would be tempted to read, "Vaydabber Bar Ilan 6.0..."
Now I'm feeling left out. :-)
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
David Ellis
>My contract stipulates that I always get sh'lishi in Bekhukoti and
>shishi in Ki Tavo. No one has ever complained.
Having done the Bechukotai reading for the first time this past May, I
must say it's a difficult experience. I can see why you don't have
people lining up to read that passage. But a contractual stipulation?
Must have been a field day for the house lawyers. :-)
--
David J Ellis
92 Wilson Drive / Framingham, MA 01702
d...@mkitso.ultranet.com
Jay Lapidus
<yRGQ3.141$j5.1...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,
jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) wrote:
>>Anyway, Harry, as the Baal Qoreh, I do emend the text to read,
>>"Vaydabber haShem el JEPD lemor."
>>
>>Rafael might read, "Vaydabber Mishehu..."
>>Robert might read, "Vaydabber haShem el Robert lemor: kulam shaqranim
>>hem."
>>Shelly might read, "And the LORD said in English to Moses."
>>I might also read, "Vaydabber Schimmel..."
>>Josh would be tempted to read, "Vaydabber Bar Ilan 6.0..."
>
>Now I'm feeling left out. :-)
That's because I'm still trying to figure out whether you prophesy or
prophecy.
Jacob Love
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[To me.]
>>Now I'm feeling left out. :-)
>
>That's because I'm still trying to figure out whether you prophesy or
>prophecy.
I knew that was coming.
--Jack
Daniel Israel
cross-purposes.
The technique in question is a good way to measure what percentage
of women voted for what candidate. It does not measure how many
voted for the same candidate as their husband. These are two
different statistics.
--
Daniel M. Israel
<dan...@cfd.ame.arizona.edu>
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
Jonathan J. Baker
>>Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
>>aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
>>the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
>>being told how great he is.
>My contract stipulates that I always get sh'lishi in Bekhukoti and
>shishi in Ki Tavo. No one has ever complained.
Taking the tochacha on yourself is normal. Taking your bar-m parsha
is normal. Getting an aliyah on a yahrzeit or a birthday is normal.
Contractually mandating an aliyah every week is not normal.
Jonathan J. Baker
>in article 7uu5fh$q1h$2...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net, Harry Weiss at
>hjw...@netcom19.netcom.com wrote on 10/24/99 1:29 AM:
>> Our Rabbi rarely leads services, but always layns. When is away it is
>> tough to find replacements.
>At the risk of shocking some, at our C congregation our rabbi (a woman)
>rarely leads the service. It is done almost entirely by members. In fact the
>participatory nature was one of the reasons it was formed 10 years ago, and
>one of the reasons I joined it. I think she spent less than 10 minutes of
>the 3-1/2 hours yesterday. She did none of the Torah reading (the readers
>included women) and some of the prayers were done by children. The Ashrai
>seems to have been permanently assigned to the second graders at the nearby
>Schechter school who are simply splendid. You're shocked, right? Tell me
>you're shocked.
I for one am not shocked. Most of the Conservative places with which
I've had some connection have members lead most of the services. Leining
is a bit more difficult, so that takes a professional or other specialist,
same as at O places.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>I might also read, "Vaydabber Schimmel..."
How about "Vayedaber H' el ha-adam leimor" since "Ad-hominem Schimmel #3"
seems to be your favorite Schimmel-attribute?
Jonathan J. Baker
>In article <okATOOzq8sOndC...@4ax.com>,
>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>[To me.]
>>>Now I'm feeling left out. :-)
>>
>>That's because I'm still trying to figure out whether you prophesy or
>>prophecy.
>I knew that was coming.
How about "Vayedaber H' el hameitim..."
Jay Lapidus
<7v2ove$45m$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>In <> jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) writes:
>>Jay Lapidus <jlap...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>>I might also read, "Vaydabber Schimmel..."
>
>How about "Vayedaber H' el ha-adam leimor" since "Ad-hominem Schimmel #3"
>seems to be your favorite Schimmel-attribute?
Lame: too much explaining required. Try again!
j e rosenbaum
>The technique in question is a good way to measure what percentage
>of women voted for what candidate. It does not measure how many
>voted for the same candidate as their husband. These are two
>different statistics.
of course. one can, however, find the probability that they would vote
the same.
in any case, this is all irrelevant to the point: even if the women
were all lying, they were still clearly influenced by their husbands.
janet
mei...@qqqerols.com
(Alexis Rosoff) posted:
>On 25 Oct 1999 19:23:45 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>wrote:
>|> I for one am not shocked. Most of the Conservative places with which
>|> I've had some connection have members lead most of the services. Leining
>|> is a bit more difficult, so that takes a professional or other specialist,
>|> same as at O places.
>The one where I was raised didn't. (I rarely go there now--I tend to go to
>student services, which are a good deal more informal.) The Hebrew school
>kids did some Friday nights, and of course on Saturday the Bar/bat mitzvah
>(if they learnt their Haftarah quickly they often led much of Musaf as
>well). But we had a professional chazzan as well as a rabbi, so we
>considered it his job to lead the service.
Leining is reading the Torah with the trope from the Torah itself
(which has no vowels, punctuation, or indications of the trope
(melody?)).
>Alexis
>--
> |\ _.,,---,._ `Don't let go
> /, `.-'`' -. ;-;;._ you've got a reason to live.
> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Can't forget, we only get what we give.'
>'---''(_/--' `-'\_) -- The New Radicals
David Barak
> On 24 Oct 1999 00:12:47 -0400, in article
> <7uu0vv$bs8$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>>Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
>>aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
>>the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
>>being told how great he is.
> My contract stipulates that I always get sh'lishi in Bekhukoti and
> shishi in Ki Tavo. No one has ever complained.
hee hee... :)
-David Barak
Alexis Rosoff
wrote:
|> I for one am not shocked. Most of the Conservative places with which
|> I've had some connection have members lead most of the services. Leining
|> is a bit more difficult, so that takes a professional or other specialist,
|> same as at O places.
The one where I was raised didn't. (I rarely go there now--I tend to go to
student services, which are a good deal more informal.) The Hebrew school
kids did some Friday nights, and of course on Saturday the Bar/bat mitzvah
(if they learnt their Haftarah quickly they often led much of Musaf as
well). But we had a professional chazzan as well as a rabbi, so we
considered it his job to lead the service.
Alexis
mei...@qqqerols.com
(Alexis Rosoff) posted:
>On 25 Oct 1999 19:23:45 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>wrote:
>|> I for one am not shocked. Most of the Conservative places with which
>|> I've had some connection have members lead most of the services. Leining
>|> is a bit more difficult, so that takes a professional or other specialist,
>|> same as at O places.
>The one where I was raised didn't. (I rarely go there now--I tend to go to
>student services, which are a good deal more informal.) The Hebrew school
>kids did some Friday nights, and of course on Saturday the Bar/bat mitzvah
>(if they learnt their Haftarah quickly they often led much of Musaf as
>well). But we had a professional chazzan as well as a rabbi, so we
>considered it his job to lead the service.
Leining is reading the Torah with the trope, from the Torah itself
(which has no vowels, punctuation, or indications of the trope
(melody?)).
>Alexis
>--
> |\ _.,,---,._ `Don't let go
> /, `.-'`' -. ;-;;._ you've got a reason to live.
> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' Can't forget, we only get what we give.'
>'---''(_/--' `-'\_) -- The New Radicals
Red Heifer
"Isaiah uses an erotic metaphor to describe the messianic era,
"female shall encircle the male"
Where in Isaiah is this? Were you thinking of Jeremiah 31:22? If so,
how can you be sure this is the messianic era?
Yehudith
http://community.webtv.net/IsraelRestored/RESTORATIONOFISRAEL
Red Heifer
Micha Berger wrote:
"Women too have to deal with the outside world...However, the
religious role Jewish tradition gives her isn't about it relating to the
outside, it's about building a solid inside.."
It's a good thing Esther and Deborah didn't follow tradition. Pleasing
God is much more important.
Deborah was a prophetess and a judge as well as a wife. (Judges 4:4)
Esther was queen in a Gentile land.
God used both women to save many Jewish lives.
Yehudith
http://community.webtv.net/IsraelRestored/RESTORATIONOFISRAEL
Micha Berger
: It's a good thing Esther and Deborah didn't follow tradition. Pleasing
: God is much more important.
Who do you think mandated this tradition? Who made the requirement that
witnesses, judges, leaders, police, kings and priests be male?
Yes, there were times when we needed exceptions to the rule. However, that
doesn't define what society needs to be the norm.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 27-Oct-99: Revi'i, Vayera
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 59b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-II 1
rafaelm...@my-deja.com
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:58:25 -0400 (EDT), Red Heifer
<IsraelR...@webtv.net> wrote:
> : It's a good thing Esther and Deborah didn't follow tradition.
Pleasing
> : God is much more important.
>
> Who do you think mandated this tradition? Who made the requirement
that
> witnesses, judges, leaders, police, kings and priests be male?
Men?
> Yes, there were times when we needed exceptions to the rule. However,
that
> doesn't define what society needs to be the norm.
*We* needed or God needed? If the former, why (esp. wrt Devorah)? If
the latter, why the constraint on divine omnipotence? Surely, if God has
such a preference for distinct gender roles, He could have chosen
another male to do their otherwise male-oriented jobs.
Rafael
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
debra leone
Micha Berger wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:58:25 -0400 (EDT), Red Heifer <IsraelR...@webtv.net> wrote:
> : It's a good thing Esther and Deborah didn't follow tradition. Pleasing
> : God is much more important.
>
> Who do you think mandated this tradition? Who made the requirement that
> witnesses, judges, leaders, police, kings and priests be male?
>
> Yes, there were times when we needed exceptions to the rule. However, that
> doesn't define what society needs to be the norm.
>
Micha Berger
: *We* needed or God needed? If the former, why (esp. wrt Devorah)? If
: the latter, why the constraint on divine omnipotence? Surely, if God has
: such a preference for distinct gender roles, He could have chosen
: another male to do their otherwise male-oriented jobs.
The question is much like the one about miracles: If G-d is perfect, then
nature shouldn't need exceptions. Supernatural interventions would therefore
argue that there's an imperfection in creation.
And the answer is similar as well: What G-d thinks is the ideal norm doesn't
mean He thinks the ideal is to always stick to that norm. Nature is a great
norm, but we also needed to see that He's able to pull of exceptions.
A society of all Devorah's would be unhealthy. As would one of all Sh'muels.
Leadership qualities don't define a norm, what societal conventions should
be.
Why did this particular crisis require a woman's leadership? I don't know.
Maybe it had something to do with the sympathy Sisera's mother engendered in
the Jewish people. Maybe it was because society was getting over milaterized,
and people tend not to associate femininity with war heros. It's a question
worth exploring.
Alexis Rosoff
|> In soc.culture.jewish on Wed, 27 Oct 1999 01:52:29 GMT ale...@li.net
|> (Alexis Rosoff) posted:
|>
|> >On 25 Oct 1999 19:23:45 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
|> >wrote:
|>
|> >|> I for one am not shocked. Most of the Conservative places with which
|> >|> I've had some connection have members lead most of the services. Leining
|> >|> is a bit more difficult, so that takes a professional or other specialist,
|> >|> same as at O places.
|>
|> >The one where I was raised didn't. (I rarely go there now--I tend to go to
|> >student services, which are a good deal more informal.) The Hebrew school
|> >kids did some Friday nights, and of course on Saturday the Bar/bat mitzvah
|> >(if they learnt their Haftarah quickly they often led much of Musaf as
|> >well). But we had a professional chazzan as well as a rabbi, so we
|> >considered it his job to lead the service.
|>
|> Leining is reading the Torah with the trope from the Torah itself
|> (which has no vowels, punctuation, or indications of the trope
|> (melody?)).
Yes, I know this--I suppose I should have trimmed better. I meant that
members didn't lead services.
alexis
rafael
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:54:32 GMT, rafaelm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : *We* needed or God needed? If the former, why (esp. wrt Devorah)? If
> : the latter, why the constraint on divine omnipotence? Surely, if God has
> : such a preference for distinct gender roles, He could have chosen
> : another male to do their otherwise male-oriented jobs.
>
> The question is much like the one about miracles: If G-d is perfect, then
> nature shouldn't need exceptions. Supernatural interventions would therefore
> argue that there's an imperfection in creation.
>
> And the answer is similar as well: What G-d thinks is the ideal norm doesn't
> mean He thinks the ideal is to always stick to that norm. Nature is a great
> norm, but we also needed to see that He's able to pull of exceptions.
>
> A society of all Devorah's would be unhealthy. As would one of all Sh'muels.
> Leadership qualities don't define a norm, what societal conventions should
> be.
>
> Why did this particular crisis require a woman's leadership? I don't know.
> Maybe it had something to do with the sympathy Sisera's mother engendered in
> the Jewish people. Maybe it was because society was getting over milaterized,
> and people tend not to associate femininity with war heros. It's a question
> worth exploring.
I don't know the answer, but I find that second-guessing God (or,
rather, playing God) complicates matters. It's challenging enough just
as a sociological/historical question. (We do know that the talmudic
sages, roughly a millenium later, were not too keen on either Devorah or
Hulda-- see Megilla 14b.)
Rafael
DAVID COHEN
>On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:58:25 -0400 (EDT), Red Heifer <IsraelR...@webtv.net> wrote:
>: It's a good thing Esther and Deborah didn't follow tradition. Pleasing
>: God is much more important.
>
>Who do you think mandated this tradition? Who made the requirement that
>witnesses, judges, leaders, police, kings and priests be male?
>
Yes, who mandated this exclusively man world ??
And where is it written specifically?
And please don't remind us of the obvious that since a woman has her
impure time so she is good for nothing the rest of the time.
Expecting an explanation: DAVID COHEN
>Yes, there were times when we needed exceptions to the rule. However, that
>doesn't define what society needs to be the norm.
>
Yisroel Markov
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 19:54:32 GMT, rafaelm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : *We* needed or God needed? If the former, why (esp. wrt Devorah)? If
> : the latter, why the constraint on divine omnipotence? Surely, if God has
> : such a preference for distinct gender roles, He could have chosen
> : another male to do their otherwise male-oriented jobs.
>
> The question is much like the one about miracles: If G-d is perfect, then
> nature shouldn't need exceptions. Supernatural interventions would therefore
> argue that there's an imperfection in creation.
>
> And the answer is similar as well: What G-d thinks is the ideal norm doesn't
> mean He thinks the ideal is to always stick to that norm. Nature is a great
> norm, but we also needed to see that He's able to pull of exceptions.
>
> A society of all Devorah's would be unhealthy. As would one of all Sh'muels.
> Leadership qualities don't define a norm, what societal conventions should
> be.
>
> Why did this particular crisis require a woman's leadership? I don't know.
> Maybe it had something to do with the sympathy Sisera's mother engendered in
> the Jewish people. Maybe it was because society was getting over milaterized,
> and people tend not to associate femininity with war heros. It's a question
> worth exploring.
Then the least that our O society and its institutions can do is make sure
that we do not smother exceptions in the making. But I don't see the halacha
provide for that. I'll be glad to be proven wrong, but whenever I hear
someone cite the dictum: "a woman must not occupy a leaderhsip position", it
is cited as an absolute with no possible exceptions. Do you remember me
telling what happened when we tried to elect a woman to the board of
directors of our shul?
Yisroel Markov Member DNRC
Boston, Clinton Protectorate of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are the one species that can formulate a vision of what values are
worth pursuing -- and then pursue the opposite." -- Nathaniel Branden
Red Heifer
It's a good thing Esther and Deborah didn't follow tradition.
Pleasing God is much more important.
Micha Berger wrote:
Who do you think mandated this tradition? Who made the requirement
that witnesses, judges, leaders, police, kings and priests be male?
Yes, there were times when we needed exceptions to the rule. However,
that doesn't define what society needs to be the norm.
I think *man* mandated this tradition and made these requirements. The
fact that Deborah *was* a judge is evidence that being male was not a
*requirement* of God's.
Men placed a lot of restrictions on what women could and could not do.
There is ample evidence of women singing in the Bible, for example. Yet
*men* decided that it wasn't kosher.
Fortunately, God has promised to restore judges as they were at the
first (Isaiah 1:26), and to give us shepherds according to His heart
(Jeremiah 3:15)
Regardless of what was "the norm" in days past, or what "society" needs,
we have the hope that soon what *God* needs will be the norm.
Yehudith
http://community.webtv.net/IsraelRestored/RESTORATIONOFISRAEL
Micha Berger
: The fact that Deborah *was* a judge is evidence that being male was not a
: *requirement* of God's.
FWIW, Devorah was a shofetes, not a dayenes. Both translate to "judge" but
they aren't the same thing. It's "dayan" in particular that is limited to
men. There's also later discussion as to whether Deborah actually operated
within halachah, or if halachah was suspended because her prophecy gave her
the authority to make a limited exception. (Such as Elijah's altar on Mt.
Carmel, despite the prohibition against making any outside altars once the
temple was established.)
: There is ample evidence of women singing in the Bible, for example. Yet
: *men* decided that it wasn't kosher.
You have this one right in one way and wrong in another. Yes, this one is
man made. It's not what we're discussing though, unless we're discussing
women who want to professionally sing.
It's actually not a prohibition against women singing, it's a prohibition for
men to listen to a woman sing. Third, look at the Torah, before Miriam leads
the women in song, (Exo 16:20) she and the women leave. It's also sometimes
unclear when the Tanach means "song" and when it means "poem" -- both are
"shir" or "shirah". (Although Miriam et al used drums and wind instruments,
so that's pretty unambiguous.)
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 28-Oct-99: Chamishi, Vayera
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 60a
rafael
> It's actually not a prohibition against women singing, it's a prohibition for
> men to listen to a woman sing. Third, look at the Torah, before Miriam leads
> the women in song, (Exo 16:20) she and the women leave. It's also sometimes
> unclear when the Tanach means "song" and when it means "poem" -- both are
> "shir" or "shirah". (Although Miriam et al used drums and wind instruments,
> so that's pretty unambiguous.)
I think you mean Ex. 15:20:
"Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took a timbrel in her hand,
and all the women went out (va'teitsena) after her in dance with
timbrels."
Judging from the context, the Israelites are all still standing on the
shore of the Sea of Reeds. While it is possible that "went out" means
departure from the company of males, I believe a more plausible reading
is that the women simply stepped forward. (The verb, "y-ts-'", connotes,
both in Hebrew and in its Akkadian and Aramaic equivalents, bold or
promiscuous conduct when the subject is female. See JPS commentary on
Gn. 34:1.)
Rafael
DAVID COHEN
>On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 10:36:26 -0400 (EDT), Red Heifer <IsraelR...@webtv.net> wrote:
>: The fact that Deborah *was* a judge is evidence that being male was not a
>: *requirement* of God's.
>
>FWIW, Devorah was a shofetes, not a dayenes. Both translate to "judge" but
>they aren't the same thing. It's "dayan" in particular that is limited to
>men. There's also later discussion as to whether Deborah actually operated
>within halachah, or if halachah was suspended because her prophecy gave her
>the authority to make a limited exception. (Such as Elijah's altar on Mt.
>Carmel, despite the prohibition against making any outside altars once the
>temple was established.)
>
>: There is ample evidence of women singing in the Bible, for example. Yet
>: *men* decided that it wasn't kosher.
>
>You have this one right in one way and wrong in another. Yes, this one is
>man made. It's not what we're discussing though, unless we're discussing
>women who want to professionally sing.
>
>It's actually not a prohibition against women singing, it's a prohibition for
>men to listen to a woman sing. Third, look at the Torah, before Miriam leads
>the women in song, (Exo 16:20) she and the women leave. It's also sometimes
>unclear when the Tanach means "song" and when it means "poem" -- both are
>"shir" or "shirah". (Although Miriam et al used drums and wind instruments,
>so that's pretty unambiguous.)
Here is my question again,
In case you missed it yesterday.
Who mandated this exclusively man world ??
Red Heifer
post it:
[Here are some excerpts from a (long) article on this subject:]
"Women and slaves and children are exempt from
the study of the Law." (Code of Maimonides, Bk I, Talmud Torah, 1.1)
And:
"A woman who learns the law has a reward, but it is
not equal to the reward which the man has, because she is not commanded
to do so; for no one who does anything which he is not commanded to do,
receives the same reward as he who is commanded to do it, but a less
one. But though the woman has a reward, the sages have commanded that no
man should teach his daughter the law, for this reason, that the
majority of women have not got a mind fitted for study, but pervert the
words of the law on account of the poverty of their mind. The sages have
said, Everyone who teaches his daughter the law is considered as if he
had taught her transgression. But this applies only to the Oral Law. As
to the Written Law, he is not to teach her systematically; but if he has
taught her, he is not to be considered as having taught her
transgression." (Code of Maimonides , Bk I, Talmud Torah, 13)
Let's see if this is in accord with Moses.
The reason given for thie above restriction is cited from Deut. 11:19,
"And you shall teach them to your children."
The Hebrew for "children" literally reads, "to your sons". And thus, the
sages have interpreted this as meaning exactly that: to "your sons", and
not to "your daughters". Now, if this were to be true, and Moses
intended that the expression "your sons" should refer only to the male
offspring of Israel, and not to all their children, then we would expect
to find this same expression used with the same meaning elsewhere. But
look what Moses writes: "And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will
kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your
children ("sons") orphans." (Exodus 12:23) If "sons" is intended to
mean literally only the male "sons" here, then it would mean that the
daughters are not to be orphans, which is clearly not the case.
"And your children ("sons") shall
wander in the wilderness forty years." (Numbers 14:33) Obviously, if
the logic of the rabbinical sages applies, then the daughters of Israel
did not have to wander the wilderness.
Likewise, did only the sons of Israel have
light in Egypt during the ten plagues, while the Egyptians and the
daughters of Israel were left in the dark?
"But all the children ("sons") of Israel
had light in their dwellings." (Exodus 10:23)
But since the women are obviously included in
all these places, it is the more logical to assume that they are
obviously included in the passage, "You shall teach them to your sons",
as well. But we do not even have to base this conclusion on our
assumptions. Consider: "And Moses
commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the
solemnity of the year of the release in the Feast of Tabernacles, when
all Israel is come to appear before the Lord your God in the place which
he shall choose, you shall read this Law before all Israel in their
hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and
the stranger that is within your gates, that they may hear, and that
they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the
words of this Law." (Deut. 31:10-12)
From this, it would seem that the
women are expressly included in the command to learn the Law. Evidently,
then, it was not the opinion of their Creator that women were too dulled
in their sensibilities or too lacking in reasoning ability to be able to
comprehend the Law. (In fact, it is even expressed, that "the fear of
the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 11:10) That is--this is the
place where one starts from, in order to find wisdom. It is not the
culmination point. And not something that women are incapable of.) But
when we inquire why the sages made a rule to exempt women, we find that
their opinion differs: "A wise woman once asked Rabbi
Eleazor, How it was that after the sin of the golden calf, those who
were alike in transgressions did not die the same death? He replied, A
woman's wisdom is only for the spinning-staff, as it is written, 'All
the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands.(Exodus
35:25) ' " (Kidushin 29b) In other
words, it is the opinion of the sages that women should stick to their
sewing, and leave the study of the Law to men. But this is contrary to
what is commanded in the scripture, as seen above. (So again, the
ordinances which Moses established--that women as well as men should
study the Law--have been set aside, by an adroit bit of interpretation,
in favor of the new interpretation, that men only are entitled to this
privilige.) Such an interpretation could never have withstood the
scrutiny of the Levitical priesthood, but--alas--they no longer have any
authority as teachers of the people, and so Israel is only insturcted in
the views of the rabbinical sect.
That the rabbinic interpretation was
not the understanding in ancient times can be seen from the practices of
Ezra: "And Ezra the priest
brought the Law before the congregation, both of men and women, and all
that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh
month. And he read therein before the street that was before the water
gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and
those that could understand; and the ears of the people were attentive
to the book of the Law." (Nehemiah 8:2,3)
But beginning with the Mishnah
(Avot 1.5), the scholar is advised to carefully regulate how much he
speaks with any woman--and this includes even his own wife. This is
because, according to the sages, nothing but bad things can result from
too much talking to a woman; and you might end up neglecting the study
of Torah, and thus end up in Gehenna. Moreover, according to the
commentary on this Mishnah by the MeAm Lo'ez, a man should refrain even
from sharing his troubles with his wife or consulting her about any of
his problems; instead, he should avoid all small talk and simply
concentrate on Torah study. (This is hardly an illustration of the "one
flesh" which Adam was to find in companionship with Eve.)
In the Gemara, in Kiddushin 70a, the sage
Rabbi Samuel counsels a man who is his host. His host wants his daughter
to wait on them, but Rabbi Samuel objects, since he says a man should
never be served by any woman who is not a relative, even if she is still
a child. Then the host asks if Rabbi Samuel would like to greet the
host's wife; but again Rabbi Samuel objects, because he says that even
listening to a woman's voice can be indecent (since it can provoke evil
thoughts). Finally lthe host suggests that Rabbi Samuel can just send a
message of greeting to his wife; but this, too, the rabbi refuses;
because even to inquire after the welfare of a woman is forbidden. And
in Berakoth 43b the scholar who is careful of his reputation is
admonished to avoid several things lest the people get the wrong opinion
about him. Among the things included are wandering about the streets
late at night, wearing old or worn-out sandals, and talking to any woman
publicly--even if she is a relative.
These rules are extended to prohibiting a
man from ever listening to a woman sing, since this is regarded as
likely to produce lustful thoughts.
But in Biblical days, things seem to
have been a bit different, since we find (Judges 5:1) that Deborah, the
judge of Israel (that is, the highest civil ruler of the land, in the
days before there was a king in Israel) sang along with the man, Barak.
They sang together. As well: "And it came to
pass as they came, when David returned form the slaughter of the
Philistine, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing
and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with
instruments of music. And the women answered one another as they played,
and said, Saul has slain his thousnds, and David his ten thousands. And
Saul was very much angrered, and the saying displeased him; and he said,
They have ascribed to David then thousands, and to me they have ascribed
but thousands. . ." (I Samuel 18:6) Obviously Saul and everyone else
must have heard what the women had been singing. Then there is the case
of Barzillai, who had helped David: "I am
this day fourscore years old; and can I discern between good and evil?
Can your servant taste what I eat or what I drink? Can I hear any more
the voice of singing men and singing women?" (II Samuel 19:35) Now,
David was supposed to be learned in the Law, and had, in fact, according
to the traditions of the sect, managed to ordain 30,000 rabbis in a
single day. (Code of Maimonides, Bk XIV, Sanhedrin 4.7) That being the
case, why did he not rise up and at once condemn his friend for the
breach of listening to women sing, and commend him to repair his ways,
lest he, at this near-end of his life, fall into folly and so suffer the
pangs of Gehenna? But David is strangely silent about the matter.
And in the time of Ezra:
"The whole congegation together was forty
and two thousand three hundred and threescore. And there were among them
two hundred singing men and women." (Ezra 2:64) Or:
"I get me men singers and women singers,
and the delights of the sons of men. . . " (Eccles. 2:8) Clearly here
the man must have listened to the women singers. But in those days there
was a Levitical priesthood; and their instruction apparently was not
according to the interpretations of the later rabbis.
So different, in fact, was the Israelite
religion in those times, that women are to be found as prophetesses
(Miriam and Huldah); as civil rulers (Deborah); and are cited as
paragons of the faith (Hannah).
"And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife
of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time." (Judges 4:4)
"So Hilkiah the preist, and
Ahikam and Achbor, and Shaphan and Ashahiah went to Huldah the
prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas,
keepter of the wardrobe (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second
District) and they spoke with her. And she said to them, Thus says the
Lord God of Israel. . . " (II Kings 22:14,15) What Traditionalist
leader today would consider going to a woman to seek religious counsel,
or to hear the words of the Lord, and to be instructed by her? In fact,
traditionalist practice forbids women from serving as judges, or even
from being witnesses in court. (Part of the justification for this is
the statement in Deuteronomy 19:15, that "at the mouth of two witnesses,
or at the mouth of three witnesses, the matter shall be established";
here, of course, the word for "witnesses" is in the masculine form--and
hence that is held to rule out any women.) But clearly this was not
the practice of ancient Israel. [Here are some excerpts from a
(long) article on this subject:] "Women and
slaves and children are exempt from the study of the Law." (Code of
Maimonides, Bk I, Talmud Torah, 1.1) And:
"A woman who learns the law has a reward, but it is
not equal to the reward which the man has, because she is not commanded
to do so; for no one who does anything which he is not commanded to do,
receives the same reward as he who is commanded to do it, but a less
one. But though the woman has a reward, the sages have commanded that no
man should teach his daughter the law, for this reason, that the
majority of women have not got a mind fitted for study, but pervert the
words of the law on account of the poverty of their mind. The sages have
said, Everyone who teaches his daughter the law is considered as if he
had taught her transgression. But this applies only to the Oral Law. As
to the Written Law, he is not to teach her systematically; but if he has
taught her, he is not to be considered as having taught her
transgression." (Code of Maimonides , Bk I, Talmud Torah, 13)
Let's see if this is in accord with Moses.
The reason given for thie above restriction is cited from Deut. 11:19,
"And you shall teach them to your children."
The Hebrew for "children" literally reads, "to your sons". And thus, the
sages have interpreted this as meaning exactly that: to "your sons", and
not to "your daughters". Now, if this were to be true, and Moses
intended that the expression "your sons" should refer only to the male
offspring of Israel, and not to all their children, then we would expect
to find this same expression used with the same meaning elsewhere. But
look what Moses writes: "And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will
kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your
children ("sons") orphans." (Exodus 12:23) If "sons" is intended to
mean literally only the male "sons" here, then it would mean that the
daughters are not to be orphans, which is clearly not the case.
"And your children ("sons") shall
wander in the wilderness forty years." (Numbers 14:33) Obviously, if
the logic of the rabbinical sages applies, then the daughters of Israel
did not have to wander the wilderness.
Likewise, did only the sons of Israel have
light in Egypt during the ten plagues, while the Egyptians and the
daughters of Israel were left in the dark?
"But all the children ("sons") of Israel
had light in their dwellings." (Exodus 10:23)
But since the women are obviously included in
all these places, it is the more logical to assume that they are
obviously included in the passage, "You shall teach them to your sons",
as well. But we do not even have to base this conclusion on our
assumptions. Consider: "And Moses
commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the
solemnity of the year of the release in the Feast of Tabernacles, when
all Israel is come to appear before the Lord your God in the place which
he shall choose, you shall read this Law before all Israel in their
hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and
the stranger that is within your gates, that they may hear, and that
they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the
words of this Law." (Deut. 31:10-12)
From this, it would seem that the
women are expressly included in the command to learn the Law. Evidently,
then, it was not the opinion of their Creator that women were too dulled
in their sensibilities or too lacking in reasoning ability to be able to
comprehend the Law. (In fact, it is even expressed, that "the fear of
the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 11:10) That is--this is the
place where one starts from, in order to find wisdom. It is not the
culmination point. And not something that women are incapable of.) But
when we inquire why the sages made a rule to exempt women, we find that
their opinion differs: "A wise woman once asked Rabbi
Eleazor, How it was that after the sin of the golden calf, those who
were alike in transgressions did not die the same death? He replied, A
woman's wisdom is only for the spinning-staff, as it is written, 'All
the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands.(Exodus
35:25) ' " (Kidushin 29b) In other
words, it is the opinion of the sages that women should stick to their
sewing, and leave the study of the Law to men. But this is contrary to
what is commanded in the scripture, as seen above. (So again, the
ordinances which Moses established--that women as well as men should
study the Law--have been set aside, by an adroit bit of interpretation,
in favor of the new interpretation, that men only are entitled to this
privilige.) Such an interpretation could never have withstood the
scrutiny of the Levitical priesthood, but--alas--they no longer have any
authority as teachers of the people, and so Israel is only insturcted in
the views of the rabbinical sect.
That the rabbinic interpretation was
not the understanding in ancient times can be seen from the practices of
Ezra: "And Ezra the priest
brought the Law before the congregation, both of men and women, and all
that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh
month. And he read therein before the street that was before the water
gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and
those that could understand; and the ears of the people were attentive
to the book of the Law." (Nehemiah 8:2,3)
But beginning with the Mishnah
(Avot 1.5), the scholar is advised to carefully regulate how much he
speaks with any woman--and this includes even his own wife. This is
because, according to the sages, nothing but bad things can result from
too much talking to a woman; and you might end up neglecting the study
of Torah, and thus end up in Gehenna. Moreover, according to the
commentary on this Mishnah by the MeAm Lo'ez, a man should refrain even
from sharing his troubles with his wife or consulting her about any of
his problems; instead, he should avoid all small talk and simply
concentrate on Torah study. (This is hardly an illustration of the "one
flesh" which Adam was to find in companionship with Eve.)
In the Gemara, in Kiddushin 70a, the sage
Rabbi Samuel counsels a man who is his host. His host wants his daughter
to wait on them, but Rabbi Samuel objects, since he says a man should
never be served by any woman who is not a relative, even if she is still
a child. Then the host asks if Rabbi Samuel would like to greet the
host's wife; but again Rabbi Samuel objects, because he says that even
listening to a woman's voice can be indecent (since it can provoke evil
thoughts). Finally lthe host suggests that Rabbi Samuel can just send a
message of greeting to his wife; but this, too, the rabbi refuses;
because even to inquire after the welfare of a woman is forbidden. And
in Berakoth 43b the scholar who is careful of his reputation is
admonished to avoid several things lest the people get the wrong opinion
about him. Among the things included are wandering about the streets
late at night, wearing old or worn-out sandals, and talking to any woman
publicly--even if she is a relative.
These rules are extended to prohibiting a
man from ever listening to a woman sing, since this is regarded as
likely to produce lustful thoughts.
But in Biblical days, things seem to
have been a bit different, since we find (Judges 5:1) that Deborah, the
judge of Israel (that is, the highest civil ruler of the land, in the
days before there was a king in Israel) sang along with the man, Barak.
They sang together. As well: "And it came to
pass as they came, when David returned form the slaughter of the
Philistine, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing
and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with
instruments of music. And the women answered one another as they played,
and said, Saul has slain his thousnds, and David his ten thousands. And
Saul was very much angrered, and the saying displeased him; and he said,
They have ascribed to David then thousands, and to me they have ascribed
but thousands. . ." (I Samuel 18:6) Obviously Saul and everyone else
must have heard what the women had been singing. Then there is the case
of Barzillai, who had helped David: "I am
this day fourscore years old; and can I discern between good and evil?
Can your servant taste what I eat or what I drink? Can I hear any more
the voice of singing men and singing women?" (II Samuel 19:35) Now,
David was supposed to be learned in the Law, and had, in fact, according
to the traditions of the sect, managed to ordain 30,000 rabbis in a
single day. (Code of Maimonides, Bk XIV, Sanhedrin 4.7) That being the
case, why did he not rise up and at once condemn his friend for the
breach of listening to women sing, and commend him to repair his ways,
lest he, at this near-end of his life, fall into folly and so suffer the
pangs of Gehenna? But David is strangely silent about the matter.
And in the time of Ezra:
"The whole congegation together was forty
and two thousand three hundred and threescore. And there were among them
two hundred singing men and women." (Ezra 2:64) Or:
"I get me men singers and women singers,
and the delights of the sons of men. . . " (Eccles. 2:8) Clearly here
the man must have listened to the women singers. But in those days there
was a Levitical priesthood; and their instruction apparently was not
according to the interpretations of the later rabbis.
So different, in fact, was the Israelite
religion in those times, that women are to be found as prophetesses
(Miriam and Huldah); as civil rulers (Deborah); and are cited as
paragons of the faith (Hannah).
"And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife
of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time." (Judges 4:4)
"So Hilkiah the preist, and
Ahikam and Achbor, and Shaphan and Ashahiah went to Huldah the
prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas,
keepter of the wardrobe (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second
District) and they spoke with her. And she said to them, Thus says the
Lord God of Israel. . . " (II Kings 22:14,15) What Traditionalist
leader today would consider going to a woman to seek religious counsel,
or to hear the words of the Lord, and to be instructed by her? In fact,
traditionalist practice forbids women from serving as judges, or even
from being witnesses in court. (Part of the justification for this is
the statement in Deuteronomy 19:15, that "at the mouth of two witnesses,
or at the mouth of three witnesses, the matter shall be established";
here, of course, the word for "witnesses" is in the masculine form--and
hence that is held to rule out any women.) But clearly this was not
the practice of ancient Israel.
Micha Berger
: (The verb, "y-ts-'", connotes,
: both in Hebrew and in its Akkadian and Aramaic equivalents, bold or
: promiscuous conduct when the subject is female. See JPS commentary on
: Gn. 34:1.)
The word "yatza" means to leave. It might be used as a euphamism, but there's no
reason to assume so here.
Either way, this is tangential, as we're arguing a Rabbinic law designed to
avoid promiscuity that has nothing to do with whether Biblical law suggests
definite gender roles.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 29-Oct-99: Shishi, Vayera
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 60b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Haftorah
rafaelm...@my-deja.com
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 00:15:20 -0400, rafael <raf...@salemglobal.com>
wrote:
> : (The verb, "y-ts-'",
connotes,
> : both in Hebrew and in its Akkadian and Aramaic equivalents, bold or
> : promiscuous conduct when the subject is female. See JPS commentary
on
> : Gn. 34:1.)
>
> The word "yatza" means to leave. It might be used as a euphamism, but
there's no
> reason to assume so here.
"Yatza" means "to leave" or "to go out" (which is the translation chosen
by NJPS). When applied to females, the context is normally negative,
suggesting inappropriate boldness (as with Dina in the Shechem
incident), as women were normally held to a tight reign.
The context may not be entirely negative here (given the spirit of the
moment), but connotes a following of Miriam's example ("went out after
her in dance"), or a "stepping forward."
> Either way, this is tangential, as we're arguing a Rabbinic law
designed to
> avoid promiscuity that has nothing to do with whether Biblical law
suggests
> Either way, this is tangential, as we're arguing a Rabbinic law
designed to
> avoid promiscuity that has nothing to do with whether Biblical law
suggests
> definite gender roles.
You cited the verse as a scriptural justification. As such, I don't
think the verse says what you want it to (though, again, this case may
be exceptional even for biblical times, given what the Israelites had
just been through).
Rafael
Micha Berger
: "Yatza" means "to leave" or "to go out" (which is the translation chosen
: by NJPS). When applied to females, the context is normally negative,
: suggesting inappropriate boldness (as with Dina in the Shechem
: incident), as women were normally held to a tight reign.
I still don't say it's "normally" but rather an idiomatic usage.
Either way, it would disprove Yehudith's point. It would seem the bible
assumes women don't belong "out".
I would instead say women are supposed to be building "inside", and therefore
it's notable, if not necessarily negative -- Miriam appears to be praised
in this case -- when they do something "outside".
: You cited the verse as a scriptural justification.
After saying that it was tangential. She brought up women singing, I mentioned
that whle the law is Rabbinic, her example was not necessarily a violation
of that later law.
moshe
Binyomin Kaplan wrote:
> moshe wrote:
>
> > It was stated in an article that Jay Lapidus excerpted in a post::
> >
> > > And what is particularly pathetic is that
> > > this institution appears to be employing underhand tactics to reach
> > > its objective, hiding behind the veil of halacha instead of stating
> > > its aims clearly.
> >
> > ****************
> >
> > "Hiding behind the veil of halacha"?
> > What in the heck does that mean?
> >
> > If the position of "rabbi" was man-made,
> > of non-Biblical origin, then man is
> > free to revise the qualifications for that
> > man-made position any time he wants.
>
> Is this a sincere request for information
> or are you being sarcastic?
>
> Binyomin
**********
I was not asking a question and I was not
being sarcastic.
In fact, what I said above has been said
by some Conservative rabbis to justify
the Conservative movement's ordination
of women rabbis.
moshe
Jay Lapidus wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 1999 12:47:14 +0100, moshe <joes...@earthlink.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Jay Lapidus wrote:
> >
> >> And what is particularly pathetic is that
> >> this institution appears to be employing underhand tactics to reach
> >> its objective, hiding behind the veil of halacha instead of stating
> >> its aims clearly.
>
> I did *not* write the above.
******************
True.
As your post showed, they were not you
words but the words of someone else
that you were quoting.
Your post said at the beginning:
From:
Yated Neeman USA News III
Orthodox Institute Holds Graduation Ceremony for Female Rabbis
by Moshe Schapiro ....
DAVID COHEN
(Red Heifer) wrote:
>The following was received by me in email. I was given permission to
>post it:
>
Thank you Red Heifer for sharing with us this E-Mail you have
received. I am now surer then ever, that my not putting my e-mail on
the board is a smart thing.
David
grac...@my-deja.com
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 18:38:42 GMT,
rafaelm...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : "Yatza" means "to leave" or "to go out" (which
is the translation chosen
> : by NJPS). When applied to females, the context
is normally negative,
> : suggesting inappropriate boldness (as with
Dina in the Shechem
> : incident), as women were normally held to a
tight reign.
>
> I still don't say it's "normally" but rather an
idiomatic usage.
What I'm saying is that it's "normally idiomatic"
when applied to females. IOW, I think your
reading of "yatza" was more literal than what fits
the context.
> Either way, it would disprove Yehudith's point.
It would seem the bible
> assumes women don't belong "out".
>
> I would instead say women are supposed to be
building "inside", and therefore
> it's notable, if not necessarily negative --
Miriam appears to be praised
> in this case -- when they do something
"outside".
I'm not sure that Miriam and her co-performers are
"praised," but they're not condemned, either.
> : You cited the verse as a scriptural
justification.
>
> After saying that it was tangential. She brought
up women singing, I mentioned
> that whle the law is Rabbinic, her example was
not necessarily a violation
> of that later law.
And I say that the simplest reading (i.e., the one
that I always got and still stand by) is that
Miriam and other women performed before the rest
of the Israelites on the shore of the Sea of
Reeds. If one assumes that the event actually
took place, then either there was less of a
cultural stigma (or none at all) against women
singing and dancing before men, or the exceptional
circumstances excused a temporary loosening up of
the usual gender barriers. Personally, I'm
leaning toward the former ("less of a.." option).
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
>> Somebody wrote:
Much interesting stuff, snipped.
>>:I think it would cross a line if women led prayer
>>: services, or performed weddings.
>
>>In O, Rabbis don't lead services any more often than any other man.
>
> i think that's her point: a woman could take a significant proportion
> of a rabbi's duties without pushing forward the snowball. even if a
> woman could answer questions, there's no reason she would have to be
> shatz.
>
>>Also, why do you consider "performing weddings" distinct? All a Rabbi who
>>officiates at a wedding does is make sure the ceremony is performed properly.
>>If there were some other way to be sure, his presence wouldn't be required.
>>So, it boils down to the same "rendering halachic decisions" role as what
>>you already willing to consider.
>
> perhaps she thought that this necessitated that the one officiating
> at a wedding be an eligible witness. (does it?)
Not at all. I recall relatives of either the choson or the kallah
being first degree relatives. Most often it's a father or (if they
are lucky enough) a grandfather. At my sister's wedding, the mesader
kidushin was my b-i-l's brother who had just recently recieved his
ordination from YU.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(mailed & posted)
Binyomin Kaplan
moshe wrote:
> Binyomin Kaplan wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > "Hiding behind the veil of halacha"?
> > > What in the heck does that mean?
> > >
> > > If the position of "rabbi" was man-made,
> > > of non-Biblical origin, then man is
> > > free to revise the qualifications for that
> > > man-made position any time he wants.
> >
> > Is this a sincere request for information
> > or are you being sarcastic?
>
>
> I was not asking a question and I was not
> being sarcastic.
>
> In fact, what I said above has been said
> by some Conservative rabbis to justify
> the Conservative movement's ordination
> of women rabbis.
But you are a pentecostal xian, not an adherent of the
Conservative movement. Your reasons for regarding
the institution of Rabbi as "man-made" have nothing to do
with they believe. It seems that, contrary to your statements
that you only express a "messianic" viewpoint on scj
in response to attacks, you just barged into a thread
that did not have anything to do with "messianic Judaism"
in order to express your usual viewpoint.
Binyomin
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
> Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
> aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
> the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
> being told how great he is.
Why do you equate getting an aliyah with being told you're great?
Maybe, the rabbi undestood the halacha to be that the shule is
_required_ to give the mora d'asra an aliyah every week to demonstrate
his authority. He may have put it in the contract because he was
afraid they wouldn't comply with that halacha otherwise.
moshe
Binyomin Kaplan wrote:
************
I attended several Conservative shuls
over the years and I was a member of
a Conservative shul.
So I am qualified to state what was taught
in the Conservative movement.
At no time in this thread have I said anything
regarding Messianic Judaism.
My post was on-topic for the thread.
Admit it.
The fact that I still breathe air is
what really bothers you.
DAVID COHEN
(Red Heifer) wrote:
>The following was received by me in email. I was given permission to
>post it:
>
>
Dear Yehudith, again...
I copied that big e-mail you got into a WORD document and tried to
edit it and make some sense of it.
It stretches over 8 (eight) full pages of 8.5 by 11, good portions of
it are numerical strings and all in all a big confusion.
I pity the person who sat there typing it, with the result that it is
barely comprehensive.
I don't know what he meant by this e-mail but I don't think he is
Jewish.
Is someone trying to take you into messianism....:-) :-) :-) :-)
Have you read it? And what is your impression of it
David
mei...@qqqerols.com
<joes...@earthlink.com> posted:
>Binyomin Kaplan wrote:
>************
But you weren't paying attention to anything they told you, or you
wouldn't have fallen into your perversion.
>So I am qualified to state what was taught
>in the Conservative movement.
Furthermore your motives here are wicked. You have vested yourself
with an interest in destroying authentic Judaism to promote your
bastardized idolotry with Jewish-style trimmings. If you put a
ten-gallon hat on a gorilla and called him a cowboy, you wouldn't be
anymore misleading.
>At no time in this thread have I said anything
>regarding Messianic Judaism.
It doesn't matter. This particular thread didn't incline you to say
such thing, but your goals remained the same. You hold anti-Jewish
views and you pretend to give Jewish answers to questions. You're a
termite trying to eat away at structure of the Jewish world, with
plans to replace it later with your perversion.
>My post was on-topic for the thread.
>Admit it.
>The fact that I still breathe air is
>what really bothers you.
You're a trespasser. A mole. If you would stop going out of your way
to post distortions and hate in front of us, we'd gladly forget about
you.
The posts that referred to one of your personal characteristics were
rude, but perhaps they do explain why you spend time intruding back
into a world you voluntarily left. You have too much spare time at
home, and it truly is in your case the devil's workshop. You should
spend your time making something of yourself instead of shaming your
great-grandparents (and probably your parents too, if there is any
truth in your vague allusions to actually being a Jew) by spending so
much time trespassing and crapping on the beliefs of people you've
betrayed.
mei...@QQQerols.com
Remove the QQQ
and I'll get back to you.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>>aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
>>>the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
>>>being told how great he is.
>
>>shishi in Ki Tavo. No one has ever complained.
>
> Taking the tochacha on yourself is normal. Taking your bar-m parsha
> is normal. Getting an aliyah on a yahrzeit or a birthday is normal.
> Contractually mandating an aliyah every week is not normal.
Seems to me you're saying "normal" = anything Jonathan Baker can
agree with :-).
I've never heard of anyone voluntarily "taking" the tocchacha. Unless
you want to claim that since the bal koreh _usually_ gets the
tochacha, then, ipso facto, agreeing to be bal koreh = "taking" the
tochacha on yourself. I don't agree with that.
Red Heifer
Dear Yehudith, again...
I copied that big e-mail you got into a WORD document and tried to edit
it and make some sense of it. It stretches over 8 (eight) full pages of
8.5 by 11, good portions of it are numerical strings and all in all a
big confusion. I pity the person who sat there typing it, with the
result that it is barely comprehensive. I don't know what he meant by
this e-mail but I don't think he is Jewish. Is someone trying to take
you into messianism....:-) :-) :-) :-) Have you read it? And what
is your impression of it
David
David,
I apologize for posting something that did nothing but confuse you. I
must take part of the blame for the length of it, as I think I copied it
twice. I am still learning how to copy/paste, and mess up sometimes.
The reason I posted it was because you asked who made these rules about
what women couldn't do. As you know, my knowledge of Jewish writings
outside the Bible is limited. Since no one else answered your question,
I thought it would help.
As far as trying to convert me to messianism, I didn't see any
references to that. If they were there, it went over my head. :)
What is my impression of it? I was hoping someone more knowledgeable of
the Talmud, etc. could comment on it. My intention was to present it
for discussion. It appears to have some good points, but I would like
to hear other views as well.
Yehudith
http://community.webtv.net/IsraelRestored/RESTORATIONOFISRAEL
j e rosenbaum
i agree with your conclusion: women are allowed to learn anything at
all. some day, they may be considered to be required to learn anything.
women now may certainly take the obligation of learning upon themselves
individually.
the chain of logic is scattered, though whoever wrote it put a lot of
creative effort into it, and the list of cites is valuable. they should
see the books on women in judaism by: moshe meiselman, eliezer berkovits,
daniel boyarin (carnal israel), judith hauptman (non-o), rachel biale (non-o),
joel wolowelsky. each book has a chapter on the subject --- it's not so
much material --- and together they present a more complete picture.
actually, the r berkovits book is the entire book, but it's very good.
>[Here are some excerpts from a (long) article on this subject:]
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"Women and slaves and children are exempt from
>the study of the Law." (Code of Maimonides, Bk I, Talmud Torah, 1.1)
this is true, and reflects only an exemption, not a prohibition.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"A woman who learns the law has a reward, but it is
>not equal to the reward which the man has, because she is not commanded
>to do so; for no one who does anything which he is not commanded to do,
>receives the same reward as he who is commanded to do it, but a less
>one.
this is true as a general principle.
> But though the woman has a reward, the sages have commanded that no
>man should teach his daughter the law, for this reason, that the
>majority of women have not got a mind fitted for study, but pervert the
>words of the law on account of the poverty of their mind. The sages have
>said, Everyone who teaches his daughter the law is considered as if he
>had taught her transgression. But this applies only to the Oral Law. As
>to the Written Law, he is not to teach her systematically; but if he has
>taught her, he is not to be considered as having taught her
>transgression." (Code of Maimonides , Bk I, Talmud Torah, 13)
some later authorities have concluded that although this was true at the
time, women are now accustomed to engage in all sorts of intellectual
activities, so there is no prohibition.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0Let's see if this is in accord with Moses.
>The reason given for thie above restriction is cited from Deut. 11:19,
>"And you shall teach them to your children."
>The Hebrew for "children" literally reads, "to your sons". And thus, the
>sages have interpreted this as meaning exactly that: to "your sons", and
>not to "your daughters". Now, if this were to be true, and Moses
>intended that the expression "your sons" should refer only to the male
>offspring of Israel, and not to all their children, then we would expect
>to find this same expression used with the same meaning elsewhere.
one question is whether anyone can find a use of where sons means sons.
i think there must be places, but i don't have time to look for them.
regardless, even without this, ben azzai was able to say that women are
obligated to be taught, though had the halacha followed him, it may have
only been rabbinical, so women would have less obligation than men.
>assumptions. Consider: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"And Moses
>commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the
>solemnity of the year of the release in the Feast of Tabernacles, when
>all Israel is come to appear before the Lord your God in the place which
>he shall choose, you shall read this Law before all Israel in their
>hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and
>the stranger that is within your gates, that they may hear, and that
>they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the
>words of this Law." (Deut. 31:10-12)
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0From this, it would seem that the
>women are expressly included in the command to learn the Law.
hakhel (assembly) is a separate mitzvah, and women are held to be
obligated in it. some take this to mean that women are obligated to
hear public torah reading.
the source for public torah reading, for both men and women, is somewhat
obscure, though. (what is it?)
>Evidently,
>then, it was not the opinion of their Creator that women were too dulled
>in their sensibilities or too lacking in reasoning ability to be able to
>comprehend the Law.
elsewhere, people say that torah speaks to all levels --- from the most
simple to the most wise --- so hakhel doesn't prove anything.
>their opinion differs: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"A wise woman once asked Rabbi
>Eleazor, How it was that after the sin of the golden calf, those who
>were alike in transgressions did not die the same death? He replied, A
>woman's wisdom is only for the spinning-staff, as it is written, 'All
>the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands.(Exodus
>35:25) ' " (Kidushin 29b) =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0In other
>words, it is the opinion of the sages that women should stick to their
>sewing, and leave the study of the Law to men. But this is contrary to
>what is commanded in the scripture, as seen above.
this is egregious, i agree.
r eliezer is notorious for his treatment of women.
fortunately, this is not normative.
>(So again, the
>ordinances which Moses established--that women as well as men should
>study the Law--have been set aside, by an adroit bit of interpretation,
>in favor of the new interpretation, that men only are entitled to this
>privilige.) Such an interpretation could never have withstood the
>scrutiny of the Levitical priesthood, but--alas--they no longer have any
>authority as teachers of the people, and so Israel is only insturcted in
>the views of the rabbinical sect.
the pharisees, if you will.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0That the rabbinic interpretation was
>not the understanding in ancient times can be seen from the practices of
>Ezra: =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"And Ezra the priest
>brought the Law before the congregation, both of men and women, and all
>that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh
>month. And he read therein before the street that was before the water
>gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and
>those that could understand; and the ears of the people were attentive
>to the book of the Law." (Nehemiah 8:2,3)
as i said, this is hakhel which is a separate mitzvah which women are
obligated in.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0But beginning with the Mishnah
>(Avot 1.5), the scholar is advised to carefully regulate how much he
>speaks with any woman--and this includes even his own wife.
it reflects a particular social view which no longer holds. beruriah in
i think eruvin rebukes a rabbi for speaking with too many words to her.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0These rules are extended to prohibiting a
>man from ever listening to a woman sing,
see rabbi saul berman's article on kol isha in the rabbi lookstein
memorial book. i think you'll be surprised by his view.
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0So different, in fact, was the Israelite
>religion in those times, that women are to be found as prophetesses
>(Miriam and Huldah); as civil rulers (Deborah); and are cited as
>paragons of the faith (Hannah).
there are no prophets at the moment, male or female, so that's not a
point of comparison. some today do argue that women can be judges.
many many women in all parts of the community are cited as paragons of
faith, so i don't think that's such a change.
>from being witnesses in court. (Part of the justification for this is
>the statement in Deuteronomy 19:15, that "at the mouth of two witnesses,
>or at the mouth of three witnesses, the matter shall be established";
>here, of course, the word for "witnesses" is in the masculine form--and
>hence that is held to rule out any women.)
this wasn't done because women at the time were not in secular positions
of authority. now that women can serve on the supreme court, things may
change. it will surely be slow.
janet
DAVID COHEN
Heifer) wrote:
>DAVID=A0COHEN wrote:
>
> Dear Yehudith, again...
>I copied that big e-mail you got into a WORD document and tried to edit
>it and make some sense of it. It stretches over 8 (eight) full pages of
>8.5 by 11, good portions of it are numerical strings and all in all a
>big confusion. I pity the person who sat there typing it, with the
>result that it is barely comprehensive. I don't know what he meant by
>this e-mail but I don't think he is Jewish. Is someone trying to take
>you into messianism....:-) :-) :-) =A0 :-) Have you read it? And what
>is your impression of it
>David
>
>
>David,
>
>I apologize for posting something that did nothing but confuse you. I
>must take part of the blame for the length of it, as I think I copied it
>twice. I am still learning how to copy/paste, and mess up sometimes.
>
>The reason I posted it was because you asked who made these rules about
>what women couldn't do. As you know, my knowledge of Jewish writings
>outside the Bible is limited. Since no one else answered your question,
>I thought it would help.
>
>As far as trying to convert me to messianism, I didn't see any
>references to that. If they were there, it went over my head. :)
>
>What is my impression of it? I was hoping someone more knowledgeable of
>the Talmud, etc. could comment on it. My intention was to present it
>for discussion. It appears to have some good points, but I would like
>to hear other views as well.
>
>
>
>Yehudith
>
>
>
>http://community.webtv.net/IsraelRestored/RESTORATIONOFISRAEL
>
Forever yours............
David
Red Heifer
(some very helpful and interesting comments on my previous *very*
long post)
janet,
Thank you so much for taking the time to comment on these things. It
helped me a great deal.
Yehudith
http://community.webtv.net/IsraelRestored/RESTORATIONOFISRAEL
DAVID COHEN
wrote:
Isn't this the thrust of my fights here with the O ?
I too have read this article, I even edited and removed all the
disturbing digits and refined it to a good 8 pages article in a WORD
format, but I was afraid to even bring it forward out of fear of the
O contingency that rule this NG.
They would have shredded it and me too because if I bring something
well done and it does raises interest, they don't like it.
I have stacks of their past attacks on me.
Funny but I haven't heard any of them attacking the awful article by
that Herzog who tries to deligitimize Judaism altogether. they really
do live in their fools heaven.
I have had clashes with them precisely on the women issue and I earned
the title of a 'meshumad' (converted out) a 'messianic' and every
bad name you can tag on a Jew.
Not just that, but they attack like a pack of hyenas with each of them
biting from another side and once I had to scream with threats that I
am going to expose at least one of them for some shenanigans done.
Only then they left me alone.
They have leaders. I won't name names. One of them is respected by
them as a Posek when he is not, another thinks that what he knows no
human being can know unless one spend his life in the dark like he
apparently did.
Freeing the Jewish women scares the hell out of them because the
halakah gives them the unfair and uncivilized advantage of outright
owning the woman and they won't let go of their ill gotten gains.
They will try every dishonest verbal gymnastics to get around or
explain the unexplainable.
What they can't see is that it will change eventually, whether they
like it or not, but if it will change with them it will be in an
orderly manner, if it will change in opposition to them it will be in
a chaotic manner and the main loser will be the halakha.
The bottom line is, and I am suggesting it to both of you ladies,
Janet and Yehudith, don't touch the Jewish women subject here on
S.C Orhtodox (Formerly known as SCJ) if you want to have any
discussion with them. It gives them the willies, they see their phony
world collapsing around them and they are not kind to anyone trying to
free the Jewish woman form her legal slavery under the halkaha.
David Cohen
Jonathan J. Baker
>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>snip
>> Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
>> aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
>> the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
>> being told how great he is.
>Why do you equate getting an aliyah with being told you're great?
>Maybe, the rabbi undestood the halacha to be that the shule is
>_required_ to give the mora d'asra an aliyah every week to demonstrate
>his authority. He may have put it in the contract because he was
>afraid they wouldn't comply with that halacha otherwise.
Source?
Generally, not having a lot of chiyuvim, we give out aliyot to
people who need chizuk - new converts, newly religious, people who
we want to encourage to come to shul more often.
Those of us who would come anyway, the gabbaiom, the president,
the baalei tefillah (prayer leaders) - rarely get aliyot.
(Chiyuvim: obligatory aliyot; chizuk: reinforcement)
The exception is the rabbi: he contractually gets one.
So I have to wonder, does he really feel he needs that much chizuk?
--
Jonathan Baker | Marches-wan, marches-two,
jjb...@panix.com | March the months all through and through
Jonathan J. Baker
>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>>>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
>>>>Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
>>>>aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
>>>>the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
>>>>being told how great he is.
>>>My contract stipulates that I always get sh'lishi in Bekhukoti and
>>>shishi in Ki Tavo. No one has ever complained.
>> Taking the tochacha on yourself is normal. Taking your bar-m parsha
>> is normal. Getting an aliyah on a yahrzeit or a birthday is normal.
>> Contractually mandating an aliyah every week is not normal.
>Seems to me you're saying "normal" = anything Jonathan Baker can
>agree with :-).
No, it's anything I've seen, in perhaps a dozen or so shuls.
>I've never heard of anyone voluntarily "taking" the tocchacha. Unless
>you want to claim that since the bal koreh _usually_ gets the
>tochacha, then, ipso facto, agreeing to be bal koreh = "taking" the
>tochacha on yourself. I don't agree with that.
?? With what are you disagreeing? That the Baal Kriah should
get the tochacha aliyah?
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Don't you *offer* it to the shul president ? :-)
Josh
Jay Lapidus
<7vsf1e$mju$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote re aliyot to the Torah:
>The exception is the rabbi: he contractually gets one. [weekly]
>So I have to wonder, does he really feel he needs that much chizuk?
He may be wiser than you think.
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * - Rabbi Saul Lieberman z"l *
******************************
http://members.tripod.com/jlapidus ICQ #2083554
Red Heifer
David,
"It gives them the willies" ???? LOL !!!
*That* I would like to see!! :)))) I've heard about "the willies" but
have never actually seen it displayed :)
Seriously, I know you have tried to help women by speaking up for their
rights. And O men and women have said that they don't need help to
"free" the women.
Such is life! Everyone sees things a little differently, but that's
what makes life interesting. :) Who knows what a mess we would have if
everyone was like me :(
If it's any consolation, don't forget that we still have freedom of
religion (more or less) and no one *has* to belong to an O community
(unless there's a gun to your head or something like that). So women
who don't agree with the O point of view can belong somewhere else, or
nowhere at all.
Sooner or later, Moshiach will show up, anyway, and straighten us all
out. :)
Be well
Yehudith
http://community.webtv.net/IsraelRestored/RESTORATIONOFISRAEL
DAVID COHEN
The willies.......are a figure of speech in English....
In Israel, where people from all languages live, they call it
'Mandevoshkes'......
Don't ask what it is, it is unprintable :-)
Shalom
David
>
>
>http://community.webtv.net/IsraelRestored/RESTORATIONOFISRAEL
>
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>
>
>>> Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
>>> aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
>>> the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
>>> being told how great he is.
>
>>Maybe, the rabbi undestood the halacha to be that the shule is
>>_required_ to give the mora d'asra an aliyah every week to demonstrate
>>his authority. He may have put it in the contract because he was
>>afraid they wouldn't comply with that halacha otherwise.
>
> Source?
I've seen it done. Others have reported that as well. In the shule
that I grew up, the Rabbi hardly ever got an aliya. So I doubt if
it's mandatory.
> Generally, not having a lot of chiyuvim, we give out aliyot to
> people who need chizuk - new converts, newly religious, people who
> we want to encourage to come to shul more often.
Interesting and very nice.
> Those of us who would come anyway, the gabbaiom, the president,
> the baalei tefillah (prayer leaders) - rarely get aliyot.
>
> (Chiyuvim: obligatory aliyot; chizuk: reinforcement)
>
> The exception is the rabbi: he contractually gets one.
> So I have to wonder, does he really feel he needs that much chizuk?
Maybe when he wrote the contract, he wasn't aware of this custom of
yours? It is not that common.
Jonathan J. Baker
>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) writes:
>>
>>>> Our shul has a peculiar contractual obligation to give the rabbi an
>>>> aliyah every week. It does seem strange to be obligated to honor
>>>> the rabbi, as if he felt so insecure that he couldn't go a week without
>>>> being told how great he is.
>>>Why do you equate getting an aliyah with being told you're great?
>>>Maybe, the rabbi undestood the halacha to be that the shule is
>>>_required_ to give the mora d'asra an aliyah every week to demonstrate
>>>his authority. He may have put it in the contract because he was
>>>afraid they wouldn't comply with that halacha otherwise.
>> Source?
>I've seen it done. Others have reported that as well. In the shule
>that I grew up, the Rabbi hardly ever got an aliya. So I doubt if
>it's mandatory.
That's not a source. It's anecdotal evidence. You made a specific claim,
that he might have understood the halacha to be a certain way. So what
halacha was he understanding?
>> Those of us who would come anyway, the gabbaiom, the president,
>> the baalei tefillah (prayer leaders) - rarely get aliyot.
>>
>> (Chiyuvim: obligatory aliyot; chizuk: reinforcement)
>>
>> The exception is the rabbi: he contractually gets one.
>> So I have to wonder, does he really feel he needs that much chizuk?
>Maybe when he wrote the contract, he wasn't aware of this custom of
>yours? It is not that common.
The contract is new. The rabbi has been with us for 15 years.