שלא עשני אשה - interesting answer

imorethanamother

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 2:26 pm

youngishbear wrote:

Sounds like the thesis of "Arrow Circle Spiral", too.

How is it not "less than" to be raped and discriminated against?

What would it sound like if a white man says "thank God I'm not black because of all the discrimination they suffer"? Ahhh the uproar...

None of the answers explain why they couldn't simply say "thank you Hashem for making me a man" and for women to say "... for making me a woman".

I also can't help but think that at the end of the day, there are too many questions that need too many complex answers. Occam's razor rules that the simpler answer is the true one.

We are not inherently inferior because we are in danger of being raped more often than men. That's a ridiculous premise.

And being a liberal, most liberals understand that being born male and white affords you more privilege than most people. There are lots of psychological polls in which white people tell you straight out that they feel lucky that they weren't born black. It's a sad truth, and that's not to say that black people are inferior. It means that we all have to work harder at extinguishing racism and work to promote equality instead.

DrMom

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 2:34 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand where you are taking all this...

I'd certainly think it odd if White people woke up each morning and said, "Thank You, HaShem, for not making me Black." Wouldn't you?

And if we have to work harder to promote equality... Do you think saying this each morning would encourage this? If anything, I would think it would promote a sort of fatalistic attitude that there is nothing you can do about it, and just count your lucky stars you are the more privileged race.

And are Jewish men really thinking about how to make women's experiences better when they daven each morning and remind themselves how "privileged" (to use your language) they (men) are? I'm thinking not...

marina

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 4:30 pm

amother wrote:

This response dates back to the Tosefta (contemporaneous with the Gemara) so while it may not be a gratifying answer, it's hardly modern apologetics.

I read all four pages and do not see a source for this.

1. Women being on a higher madreiga than men is a very very modern idea - postdating and resulting from feminism. Once feminism came along, it was no longer acceptable to explain that women are second class citizens and so new explanations were needed. As far as I'm aware, there is one obscure Zohar source that posits that bzman moshiach, women will be on higher levels than men. That's it. Nothing in the gemara and in fact, the classic explanations are generally uncomplimentary to women.

2. Sheosani K'rtzono. Never understood this. Is there anything or anyone not made according to Hashem's will? How else would that person or thing be created?

3. Another problem with this idea that we are thanking God for the higher mitzvos count is that it is not consistent. Cohanim do not thank Hashem for not making them Leviim and Leviim do not thank Hashem for not making them Yisroel. Farmers do not thank Hashem for not making them some other workers that have less commandments. And if you are going to say farmers is not an innate characteristic and that it can be changed, think about shelo asani eved.

4. Finally, women are valued lower according to the shulchan aruch. Basic halacha is that if a man and woman are drowning, you save the man first, unless the woman is your mother. That is straight out in the shulchan aruch- women are ( almost without exception) valued less, so it doesn't matter if they are on a so-called higher level or whatever, that's all talk.

And before you tell me that this rule doesn't apply nowadays, we had a thread here on imamother where a first responder from EY explained that her rav told her to follow this rule if everything else was equal.

In short- apologetics Sad

marina

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 4:42 pm

Fox wrote:

This is what I learned, as well. Years ago, I heard a shiur (can't remember by whom) in which the male speaker said, "In every era and every age, women's lives are almost always harder and less pleasant than men's." The bracha is the acknowledgement that men often have it easier.

1. Thanks Hashem for not making me black, or disabled, or otherwise marginalized in society? A bit offensive also, yes? Should gentiles thank God for not making them Jews who are subject to much antisemitism?

2. The overall concept of thanking God for being healthy or having a good life is already stated in many other ways in davening. Why the need to point out that half the population has a suckier life than you?

3. The overall concept is just not true. Men do not have an easier life than women. They are just valued more. Men are the ones sent to war to die for the whims of their rulers and they are the ones who have to toil to provide for their families and they are the ones who live shorter lives and are more prone to various illnesses. Sure they enjoy certain privileges and benefits, but overall their lives aren't easier, at least not historically.

amother

Green

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 4:45 pm

This thread has gone the way of pretty much all similar threads - apparently, there is no satisfactory, pleasant conclusion to our contemporary views as to the original intention.

Of course, there's plenty of post-rationalization. That can be done with anything in life.

And with convoluted answers which require at least four pages of intricate explanations to attempt to veer us away from the original premise, I think the simplest thing to do here is to accept the simple answer.

Yes, people viewed women as an inferior gender in those days, and therefore thanked that they weren't female in the same manner they thanked Hashem for not creating them as non-Jews or slaves, which were also considered at the bottom rung.

Let's just be thankful that today, thanks to feminism, men are at least trying to explain things in a positive light.

And let's not delude ourselves into thinking that shelo asani ishah was originally intended as praise for women.

marina

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 4:47 pm

Seas wrote:

What it doesn't mean is that g0yim have a neshama. They have other kinds of souls, but the one called neshama is the sole reserve of Jews.

Frankly I don't see the point in debating something that's universally accepted, from the rishonim to the achronim, from the chassidim to the misnagdim.

This is a form of religious supremacy that was historically understandable, but has outlived its usefulness. When Jews were subject to pogroms and genocide and torture and the governments looked the other way or were complicit, we had to explain our oppressors' savagery and this is how we did it- they don't have our kind of souls.

Continuing this approach in 2016 in America is just bigoted and harmful and often results in a chillul hashem.

amother

Green

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 5:24 pm

Seas wrote:

The reason for that is that Chazal teach us that it would have been better for humans not to have been born than to have been born*, so we can't very well thank Hashem for doing something which is to some measure detrimental. We can, however, thank Him for not creating us in a way whereby we have fewer mitzvos (I.e. opportunities with which to serve Him), or with a lower spiritual level. That's why we thank Hashem for not creating us as g0yim (no neshama or connection to Hahsem) or as slaves (mechuyav b'mitzvos but no neshama). Men add the bracha for not being created as women (who have fewer mitzvos).

*A basic explanation for that is there are 248 positive mitzvos and 365 prohibitions - meaning there are more chances for a person to do wrong than for them to do right.

Seas, can you explain the bolded?

If slaves don't have a neshama, why are they mechuyav b'mitzvos?

And why wouldn't a Jewish slave have a neshama in the first place???

gp2.0

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 5:47 pm

amother wrote:

This 100%.

imasoftov

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 6:45 pm

marina wrote:

It seems to me that she ought to first provide evidence for her unsourced assertion that this position is universally held by all rishonim and acharonim. I'd be very surprised if it could be found in Rambam, for example.

youngishbear

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 7:06 pm

amother wrote:

Yup.

Why give ten answers when you can give just one?

Seas

Sun, Apr 17 2016, 7:26 pm

amother wrote:

Seas, can you explain the bolded?

If slaves don't have a neshama, why are they mechuyav b'mitzvos?

And why wouldn't a Jewish slave have a neshama in the first place???

Why anon?

Slaves in this bracha refer to עבד כנעני - non-Jewish slaves acquired by Jews. They had to undergo a form of partial geirus which gave them the halachic status of a Jewish slave. They were mechuyav in all the mitzvos that women are mechuyav, but they were forbidden to marry a Jewish woman.

If for whatever reason they were released, they became proper geirim.

The explanation of these brachos as referring to chiyuv bemitzvos is the one given by Rashi, the Bach and other classic meforshim, hence it's the default pshat.

The meforshim also explain that even though slaves and women are equal in terms of mitzvos, slaves are inferior to women due to their status, and that's why even women thank Hashem for not being created as slaves.

In the name of anonymous rabbis the Bach brings the pshat I wrote in a previous post, that because people would have been better off not being created at all, it is more fitting to say the bracha in the negative rather than the positive.

The Bach himself, however, says this is a nice vort so to speak, but really the answer is much simpler. If a person were to make the bracha שעשני ישראל that would include all three points at once, as ישראל means a Jew, a free man and not a ישראלית. Since we want to thank Hashem separately for all three things, the brachos have ton be said in the negative.

Accordingly, some poskim are of the opinion that if someone immediately said שלא עשני אשה he can't then make the other two brachos, as he's not adding praise.

שעשני כרצונו is as I wrote previously a form of praising Hashem for doing whatever He wants and acknowledging His omnipotence even when things don't turn out the way we might have wanted. This is somewhat akin to the bracha of Dayan Haemes r"l.

There's more to be written on the subject and bln if I'll have time and anyone is interested I'll continue.

imorethanamother

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 11:31 am

marina wrote:

1. Well, yes. We thank Hashem for the gifts we are given. It's supposed to remind us to use them.

2. No it isn't, actually. We pray for Hashem to give us those things, or that those things are to be used in service of God.

3. You're looking at this with a modern lens. The answer is no. Women were - until recently - truly considered property and chattel, and they died frequently and often. Men's lives were always easier, and remember that for wars waged for God, only those who elected to fight, did. And "toiling" for work was always a family affair. We see that from Egypt, in which both men and women were expected to work - but they switched gender roles. Women's work wasn't anything to sneeze at.

imorethanamother

Tue, Apr 19 2016, 11:43 am

marina wrote:

I hear you on the chillul Hashem. However, I usually tell the non-Jews in my life that they have an easier time getting into "heaven", to use their language. And it's true.

However, it's not like you can dismiss these arguments because you feel America in 2016 somehow negates a premise. Obama is held accountable to things that no one would hold me responsible for, even though both he and I live in America in 2016. He has more power, more responsibility, and he's supposed to choose correctly so that I can live in a time of goodness and peace.

Obama and I aren't equal. He is above me. However, that doesn't mean he is more MORAL than I am, for example (I don't know enough about Obama personally to make any judgement on this one way or the other). And that is what is meant by this discussion regarding non-Jews and their neshamas.

Remember that when a soldier of the enemy loosened the damp wool of Rabbi Teradion, he went to heaven along with him.