I'm a frum woman + tallit and tefillin. Ask me anything.

PinkFridge

Mon, Apr 29 2013, 4:57 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

amother wrote:

Why do people assume that tzitzit and tefillin is a higher level of worship? That's the part of this argument I cannot wrap my head around.

Men and women are different at least on some level. Everyone must concede that. It doesn't seem like too much a leap from saying that they are somewhat different physically to saying that they are somewhat different spiritually. Again, you could argue against it but since spirituality is not quantifiable neither of us could argue very persuasively.

You might look at tefillin as a special tool that women are deprived of, and I might look at it as a crutch that is given to someone who cannot walk unassisted, and what makes your approach more compelling? If we have any faith in Chazal (which I certainly hope as Orthodox Jews we do) then my approach is more compelling, since Chazal say that women do not need tefillin.

So is the argument that Chazal is that biased against women that they are content to leave them spiritually deficient? How challenging Orthodoxy must be for you if you really believe this.

Or you could say that it is a crutch, but some women are spiritually deficient and require this too even though most women do not. I think I could live with that.

On the other hand, if we don't think that Chazal were trying to put women at a spiritual disadvantage then saying that women are on a higher spiritual level is not apologetics but logic. If men need tefillin to connect to G-d and women don't, then logically women have an easier time connecting to G-d. In Judaism the less physical the worship the holier it is.

So you are saying that the Cohanim are on a lesser spiritual plane than Yisrael because there is a whole lot of physical that goes on with the rituals they preform.

And is the fact that when "all things being equal" a man and woman are before you, that you save the man because he is required to do more mitzvah, indicative of the fact that we women have less of a need for this physical life? So whence the injunction to protect life even at the expense of mitzvot, save the "big 3" and times when the goal is to get us, for whatever reason, to disobey the Torah?

The avoda of the kehuna is in a class of its own. Take last week's listing of blemishes, etc. The cohanim who served in the mikdash (not those who engaged in the important and necessary work of teaching) had to have a degree of physical perfection not demanded anywhere else, and frankly, very confusing to the casual worder. Even those who take this deeper - a very smart woman who gave a shiur last week discussed this, largely along the lines of the Stone Chumash - may not find the answers satisfying. There's a lot of role assigning in Jewish life.

Now someone who honestly wants to understand what is acceptably and meaningfully in the parameters - my hat's (figuratively) off to you. Go for it.

celestial

Mon, Apr 29 2013, 5:43 pm

amother wrote:

Why do people assume that tzitzit and tefillin is a higher level of worship? That's the part of this argument I cannot wrap my head around.

I won't speak for the OP or anyone else, but I reject this premise outright. In terms of obligation, it is clearly more obligated upon a man. In terms of whether or not it can aid a woman's spiritual journey, I don't think it is "higher' or "lower" across the board. It depends on the woman. If used with the right kavannah and with the right Rabbinic guidance etc. for the right neshama, it's a high and lofty goal to aspire to. If it doesn't speak to you and it would not aid your spiritual journey, then it is neither here nor there. Why is it all about "levels"? I don't get that obsession. We all have our own path.

Quote:

Men and women are different at least on some level. Everyone must concede that. It doesn't seem like too much a leap from saying that they are somewhat different physically to saying that they are somewhat different spiritually. Again, you could argue against it but since spirituality is not quantifiable neither of us could argue very persuasively.

You can argue this, but you can't know it. Only Hashem knows it.
Plus, where does that put people with ambiguous genitalia, for example? With ambiguous spirituality? I seriously doubt that. You can generalize all you want, but people have to get to know themselves and what will work for them and what their path to G-d is. And that, frankly, is between them and G-d.

Quote:

You might look at tefillin as a special tool that women are deprived of, and I might look at it as a crutch that is given to someone who cannot walk unassisted, and what makes your approach more compelling? If we have any faith in Chazal (which I certainly hope as Orthodox Jews we do) then my approach is more compelling, since Chazal say that women do not need tefillin.

How about neither one? Can you possibly get out of your binary thinking for a few minutes to entertain the possibility that neither one of these things are true? That individual cases must be judged as individual cases, and only by applicable individuals (not insecure imamothers, for one)?

Quote:

So is the argument that Chazal is that biased against women that they are content to leave them spiritually deficient? How challenging Orthodoxy must be for you if you really believe this.

I think that Chazal left it as something OPEN for women to pursue without obligating them. That doesn't mean they are spiritually deficient, in fact, I'm puzzled as to where you came up with that one.

Quote:

Or you could say that it is a crutch, but some women are spiritually deficient and require this too even though most women do not. I think I could live with that.

How about it is a tool (not a crutch) that some women choose to make use of, with hopefully positive results?

Quote:

On the other hand, if we don't think that Chazal were trying to put women at a spiritual disadvantage then saying that women are on a higher spiritual level is not apologetics but logic. If men need tefillin to connect to G-d and women don't, then logically women have an easier time connecting to G-d. In Judaism the less physical the worship the holier it is.

Except for the fact that halacha does not forbid it, it is something that was seemingly discouraged for reasons not having to do with spirituality but with beged ish, guf naki etc. Issues that, with proper guidance, can be avoided.

Even if it is true that women have "an easier time", what's to stop her from making it THAT MUCH EASIER if she so chooses to? Why on earth not? That's really what my question is for the naysayers.

Merrymom

Mon, Apr 29 2013, 7:05 pm

celestial wrote:

Merrymom wrote:

celestial wrote:

Men are given more obligations...so what? Whether this has to do with your interpretation or something else entirely is neither here nor there.

What I'm discussing is egalitarianism within Judaism - should we expand, as much as is halachically permissible - the OPPORTUNITIES for women? (And men?)

It's a simple yes or no answer.

What you call an opportunity I call playing shul or dress up. Just because my five year old puts on a pair of heels and takes my pocketbook is not going to suddenly turn her into an adult, anymore than you putting on tefilin is going to make you closer to Hashem. It's not an opportunity for women at all, it's pointless.

Where do YOU get off knowing what brings others closer to Hashem? Seriously. If it doesn't work for you, fine. If you think there is no inherent spiritual worth for tefillin unless on a man, that's debatable, but still fine. But to say that it can't serve as a tool for spirituality for women because YOU decided as much? It's almost too silly to respond to such a narrow and solipsistic view of spirituality. All I can say is - keep your opinions to yourself, because that's really the only person to whom they apply.

What I say it not Torah Misinai, you can take it or leave it, but I'm never going to keep my opinions to myself on this site, that kind of defeats the purpose of being on here.

Merrymom

Mon, Apr 29 2013, 7:12 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

Merrymom wrote:

As for the point you brought up earlier. Many topics in the gemara are only theoretical, a ben sorer u'morer for example. Another is for women to get aliyos. Since it's not tznius it's never going to happen, it doesn't matter if in theory it's permitted.

Your logic is totally off. Chazal say it is permitted, it just doesn't happen because of a separate factor - kavod hatzibur. If that factor is not present, there's no reason it shouldn't happen. Anyway, the point I was making was not that it should or shouldn't happen. It was to show that the contemporary thinking of such a thing as being not tznius is flawed.

Merrymom wrote:

As for your story about cutting off a woman's hand, I think you have our religion confused with Islam, but if you can prove me wrong by quoting your source I'd be happy to look it up.

I'm not the one who is confused. It's right in the pasuk. Devarim 25:11-12: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/.....tm#11

I don't understand why you are taking this pasuk literally. I'm sure you're familiar with ayin tachas ayin (an eye for an eye). Rashi very clearly says that this means what his shame is worth in money, never ever meaning literally to cut off her hand shock

. So now I kind of understand why you are having such difficulty with the first issue as well. You see that they say it is permitted so you are taking that at face value, not understanding that kavod hatzibur is in all likelihood a euphemism for not wanting to be praying or laining in the same section with women, mainly for tznius reasons. Ask some men that you know who daven in a separate minyan and ask them how it would make them feel.

celestial

Mon, Apr 29 2013, 7:16 pm

Merrymom wrote:

celestial wrote:

Merrymom wrote:

celestial wrote:

What I say it not Torah Misinai, you can take it or leave it, but I'm never going to keep my opinions to myself on this site, that kind of defeats the purpose of being on here.

Fine, share your short-sighted and inaccurate (and slightly narcissistic) opinions - but let it be known how wrong you are just from a sampling of women on this site who do find spirituality in places you claim it is absent.

BlueRose52

Tue, Apr 30 2013, 4:14 am

Merrymom wrote:

BlueRose52 wrote:

Merrymom wrote:

As for your story about cutting off a woman's hand, I think you have our religion confused with Islam, but if you can prove me wrong by quoting your source I'd be happy to look it up.

I'm not the one who is confused. It's right in the pasuk. Devarim 25:11-12: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/.....tm#11

This is exactly the point! There are plenty of communities with minyanim full of frum men who would not feel the slightest bit uncomfortable about this. And in such situations, there's no obvious reason why it would be a problem.

Merrymom wrote:

...not understanding that kavod hatzibur is in all likelihood a euphemism for not wanting to be praying or laining in the same section with women, mainly for tznius reasons.

As I mentioned earlier on, the authorities who discuss this clearly establish that kavod hatzibur is not a euphemism for tznius.

As to the idea about cutting off a womans hand, of course I know it's not literal. The point of my bringing it up was to show the distinctively critical treatment that a woman is subjected to. Even according to a non-literal interpretation, does it not seem a bit unfair that a woman who acts in defense of her attacked husband is singled out for a special punishment? She should be punished for coming to someone else's defense?!

And even though I know it's not literal, I'll just note, to my mind, it's a much, much harder pasuk to use the "we don't take it literally" answer on. "Eye for an eye" has an intuitively metaphorical connotation to it. "Cut off her hand, and have no mercy," sounds pretty straightforward, the "have no mercy" part only seeming to reinforce the idea. And why is it so shocking that such a punishment would be inflicted on someone? If God decides that someone who picks up sticks on shabbos should be stoned (Bamidbar 25:32 - http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/.....tm#32) why can't He also decide this punishment is appropriate here?

Merrymom

Tue, Apr 30 2013, 9:28 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

Merrymom wrote:

BlueRose52 wrote:

Merrymom wrote:

As for your story about cutting off a woman's hand, I think you have our religion confused with Islam, but if you can prove me wrong by quoting your source I'd be happy to look it up.

I'm not the one who is confused. It's right in the pasuk. Devarim 25:11-12: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/.....tm#11

Merrymom wrote:

...not understanding that kavod hatzibur is in all likelihood a euphemism for not wanting to be praying or laining in the same section with women, mainly for tznius reasons.

To the first part I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As for the second, you're turning it into something it is not. You want to translate it literally (why? To point out that Hashem is cruel?) when you have no reason to, no woman ever had her hand cut off by bais din. The no mercy part is meant to convey his shame and how much that shame is worth. That's it. You cannot say because stoning was a punishment that suddenly we're acting like a bunch of Moslems. Do you know if stoning ever actually took place, maybe it was just the language used or was a strong enough deterrent to make sure that people who witnessed outright miracles every day kept Shabbos. The only thing we can go by is Torah today. Is it cruel? Does it make women into second class citizens? That's a discussion that might be worthwhile having. I personally don't think it's cruel at all, I think there are good reasons for everything that we do. Because we follow the Torah our lives are more moral, ethical, and just better.Sorry for not being pc but this is what I see every day.

BlueRose52

Tue, Apr 30 2013, 10:29 am

Merrymom wrote:

You cannot say because stoning was a punishment that suddenly we're acting like a bunch of Moslems. Do you know if stoning ever actually took place, maybe it was just the language used or was a strong enough deterrent to make sure that people who witnessed outright miracles every day kept Shabbos. The only thing we can go by is Torah today.

Have you ever read the chumash inside? It says it explicitly, black on white. Read pesukim 32-36: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/.....m#32.

Merrymom wrote:

The only thing we can go by is Torah today.

Interesting. Sounds to me like you're suggesting that the Torah of today is different than the Torah we've had for the last few thousand years. That the way the torah tells us to behave was for a different era and not applicable for contemporary society. Chas v'shalom.

PinkFridge

Tue, Apr 30 2013, 10:37 am

BlueRose52 wrote:

Merrymom wrote:

BlueRose52 wrote:

Merrymom wrote:

As for your story about cutting off a woman's hand, I think you have our religion confused with Islam, but if you can prove me wrong by quoting your source I'd be happy to look it up.

I'm not the one who is confused. It's right in the pasuk. Devarim 25:11-12: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/.....tm#11

Merrymom wrote:

...not understanding that kavod hatzibur is in all likelihood a euphemism for not wanting to be praying or laining in the same section with women, mainly for tznius reasons.

OTOH, maybe someone reading the later pasuk will have the clarity of the former, where it's established that when one physically harms someone the compensation is monetary.
And inserting the mekoshesh eitzim is, pardon the expression, a straw man. You're asking a different question: why would the RBSh"O write the Torah in such a way that one who reads it superficially might come to such a conclusion. At least I think that's what you mean. Surely you don't mean, of course I know it's not literal but I have lingering doubts?

BlueRose52

Tue, Apr 30 2013, 11:01 am

PinkFridge wrote:

BlueRose52 wrote:

And even though I know it's not literal, I'll just note, to my mind, it's a much, much harder pasuk to use the "we don't take it literally" answer on. "Eye for an eye" has an intuitively metaphorical connotation to it. "Cut off her hand, and have no mercy," sounds pretty straightforward, the "have no mercy" part only seeming to reinforce the idea. And why is it so shocking that such a punishment would be inflicted on someone? If God decides that someone who picks up sticks on shabbos should be stoned (Bamidbar 25:32 - http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/.....tm#32) why can't He also decide this punishment is appropriate here?

Huh? You think the mikoshesh eitzim story did not actually happen?

PinkFridge

Tue, Apr 30 2013, 5:00 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

BlueRose52 wrote:

Huh? You think the mikoshesh eitzim story did not actually happen?

I don't think I was clear. Let me explain how one could understand your intent in what you wrote:
The pasuk with the woman having her hand cut off should not be taken literally.
However, look at the punishment given the mekoshes eitzim [which I, PinkFridge, do believe happened]. If Hashem can give someone such a punishment, why is it beyond the pale to believe that the hand getting cut off can't be taken literally?

To which I, PF, reply, since we already have a precedent for monetary compensation, it seems much more logical to apply it here as well than to assume that it should be taken literally.

Am I clearer now?

Merrymom

Tue, Apr 30 2013, 6:59 pm

BlueRose52 wrote:

Merrymom wrote:

Have you ever read the chumash inside? It says it explicitly, black on white. Read pesukim 32-36: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/.....m#32.

Merrymom wrote:

The only thing we can go by is Torah today.

No, not at all c"v. I am saying that there are many things written in the Torah that we don't have a full understanding of the practical application of it. Sure, we know what a bris is because we've been doing that ever since it became required and it's been passed down from generation to generation. We don't know what techeiles is, we don't know anything about capital cases in beis din (other than the description of what is supposed to happen), we don't know what mahn is. Torah is a living Torah, not ancient texts but it's practical application today. Based upon how we live Torah lives we can see the outcome of living such a life.