What the He**?? What do you say to this article?

amother

Maroon

Sun, Dec 04 2016, 12:57 pm

So are women created in the image of G-d, and do they olam haba? I couldn't believe that people actually have these views. Read what this rabbi has to say:

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/......html

Are women "in the image of G-d?"

We are all familiar with Bereishis (1:27): And G-d created the Man in His Image. In the image of G-d He created him. Male and female He created them.

It seems from this verse that only Adam was created in the image of G-d and not Eve. This implies that only Adam was human and not Eve and by extension that only males are human and not females. I am going to explore this question - to see where it goes and the implications for male-female relationships as well as society as a whole.

There is a major dispute as to how the male and female humans were created.
Nahman b. R. Hisda expounded: What is meant by the text, Then the Lord God formed [wa-yizer] man? [The word wa-yizer] is written with two yods, to show that God created two inclinations, one good and the other evil. ... Or again as explained by R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar; for R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar said: God created two countenances in the first man, as it says, Behind and before hast Thou formed me. And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man made he a woman. Rab and Samuel explained this differently. One said that [this ‘rib’] was a face, the other that it was a tail.

According to the view (Berachos 61a) that man was initially created male and female - basically two individuals joined together - it makes sense that the verse uses the singular form because there was initially only one entity created - that was eventually divided into two distinct entities. But according to the view that Eve was made from Adam's rib or tail - it would seem that she is more of an appendage than a distinct human being. She was only made to allow procreation and provide support (ezer kenego) for Adam.

What are the consequences for saying that women are not in the image of G-d and does anyone actually say that women are inferior, subordinate beings because they lack the image of G-d?
Abarbanel (Bereishis 1:27): Even though Man was created as male and female, they were not both equally perfected. And even though they were the same species they were not equally in the image of G-d. That is why the verse states, “In the image of G-d He created him (singular), male and female He created them.” In other words only Adam was created in the image of G-d because he was the reason and purpose for Creation. It was only for the necessity of procreation that Man was created as male and female. In fact there is no mention of male and female being created in the image of G-d but only for procreation. Gender is found in all animals and it has nothing to do with the image of G-d. From this we can understand why the Torah doesn't say “man according to his species” but it does say that man was created male and female were created by G-d. That is because man is different than other animals in which the female is on the same level as the male and is fully equal to him in nature and that is why it says about them “according to his species” without giving the male any superiority to the female. However it is different concerning man because the male is the reason for creation of humans and he alone was created in the image of G-d. Thus the Torah states in the singular grammatical form, In the image of G-d He created him. That is because the male is the one who comprehends mysteries of wisdom and not the female about whom our Sages (Yoma 66b) said, “There is no wisdom in a woman except for the spindle” That is because the creation of the female was only an afterthought to provide the man with a helper and for the purpose of procreation as the Torah states later. So in summary we see that man was originally created alone in perfection while she was made afterwards in order to serve him. So here it just states the fact that she was created but it is only later (Bereishis 2:18-24) that the details if her creation are given. However that understanding seems to be inconsistent with the view (Eiruvin 17a) that male and female were in fact created at the same time as two entities joined together back to back. However in fact our assertion that woman lacks the image of G-d and is inferior to the male is also consistent with the view that Man was created as a hermaphrodite. In other words man was created with an additional form from which woman was made. Thus it was like man had two aspects (pirtzuf) of male and female as an androgynous being (a Greek word describing a person who has both male and female s-xual organs). However the Man was in fact a male in reality while the female aspect was only subordinate and an appendage to the male entity - in order to make a woman from it later. Thus we can explain that when it says Man was created male and female, it means that since the dominate concern was to create an intelligent being whose purpose was intellectual - for that purpose there was no need for the female and thus it was not proper to create with him the female. However this verse of “male and female He created them” teaches that in fact it was not so but rather G-d wanted that man would be created not only with the intellect but also with a non intellectual material aspect... So even though according to this second view that Man was created with both male and female aspects but the two aspects were not equal in perfection but rather it was the male aspect – the primary one - which was created with the image of G-d. Man was created as male and intellectual and only secondarily as female to enable the making of a second subordinate entity to serve the male
Aside from the Abarbanel there is the Netziv.

Netziv(Bereishis 1:26): Let us make man – G-d did not say, “let us make a being like an animal in our likeness” and afterwards call him ‘man’ as is actually written later in Bereishis (5:2). But the phrase, “let us make man” means that there is no need to give man this name – rather his character shows that he is man. But if so it is difficult. Why is it written afterwards that G-d called their name man – which implies that there was a need to give a name...? But rather the matter is like this – that man is different from all the species since all the species were created in such a way that the species was unitary in its purpose and character; which is not the case for man who rose in G-d’s thought to be of two types of character. The one would be cleaving to his G-d, ready and serving in the world like an angel does in the Heavens. And the second is such that he would be political and take care of his own needs; even though he would nonetheless do the will of G-d, it would not be on the level of the first. And behold, according to the first characteristic he is automatically man (adam) based on the phrase ‘I will be similar to the most High – meaning that within him are included all the powers of creation and he rules over everything. And behold he is like the firstborn son of a king who rules like the king. And because of this, everyone understands that he is the son of the king in that they see him ruling over every detail. Which is not the case with the son of the king who is not the firstborn and the king merely makes him rule over some detail and his fellow over another detail and so too with all those that govern the kingdom. It comes out that all of them together are simlar to the king; but each one by himself is only similar to the king when he is given the name of ruler over that detail that he governs. And thus is man – the indiviudal of spiritual sstture is different then the simple individual. And in Shabbos (112b), they hinted to these two types of men. And it is stated in the first version of a particular thatement “this is not a man” and in a second version “thisis an example of a man” –the bexplanationof this being a man of spiritual stature. But the general human species is called man by the nature of the matter in that they as a group rule over the entire creation. And this is according to G-d’s plan. (And so too with the name Israel which indictes being higher thant the nature of creation and the running of the world. It will be explained later in Vayishlach that the whole nation is called Israel, but concerning individuals some are called by the name Israel and some have not reached this.) And if so in the statement “let us make man” its explanation is [that it refers to] the general species of man and it is certainly called man even without being given the name since in this general species is the creation dependent and in this detail they are simlar to the Creator. And Adam specifically before he sinned was worthy of being called man without being given the name; but after he sinned he was given the name of man and it will be explained further.“According to our likeness” – the image is according to our likenss and automaticallly man – who is clothed in it – is in the likeness of G-d and in this is the power of man.
Netziv (Bereishis 1:27) In the image of G-d - all of nature was included in him. And from the time that it arose in the though and word of G-d that there should be nature, then G-d was called with the name Elokim. And since all of nature is included in man – behold – he is in the image of G-d. But this is not the case except in the man of stature as Adam was before the sin. Afterwards...."Male and female He created them." The verse does not come to explain that this species, more so than all the other creatures, has a male and a female. Rather, [it comes] to teach you that they are two beings, as will be explained below. This is because the male of this species is not at all similar in his character to the female of the same species. As Kohelet says: "One man among a thousand I have found; but a woman among all those I have not found" (Kohelet 7:28). That is, that a man of virtue resembling his Creator in the image of God is found one in a thousand; Which is not the case regarding women – who only fits the second description of man – who is only described as being man

================
Image of G-d defined:

Physical Appearance of the body:

To properly understand the issue it would be helpful to have a clear understanding of what "the image of G-d" means. There are clear sources that it refers to physical appearance. Avoda Zara (43a-43b):
Sanhedrin(38b):,, Bereishis Rabbah(8:3-11): Avos deRabbi Nossan (chapter 32).

Sanhedrin(46b): AS IF TO SAY WHY WAS HE HANGED? — BECAUSE HE CURSED etc. It has been taught: R. Meir said: A parable was stated, To what is this matter comparable? To two twin brothers [who lived] in one city; one was appointed king, and the other took to highway robbery. At the king's command they hanged him. But all who saw him exclaimed, ‘The king is hanged!’12 whereupon the king issued a command and he was taken down.Sanhedrin(46b):[[ AS IF TO SAY WHY WAS HE HANGED? — BECAUSE HE CURSED etc. It has been taught: R. Meir said: A parable was stated, To what is this matter comparable? To two twin brothers [who lived] in one city; one was appointed king, and the other took to highway robbery. At the king's command they hanged him. But all who saw him exclaimed, ‘The king is hanged!’12 whereupon the king issued a command and he was taken down.

Avos deRabbi Nossan(Chapter 2) Adam was born circumcised as it says and G-d created man in His image

...להות עלי אדמות. צלמו של אדם הוא -:
Intellectual achievement

Other sources indicate it is intellectual achievement concerning abstract philosophical thoughts or Torah.

Rambam(Moreh Nevuchim 1:1):...

Olam Habah for women

A related question is whether women get Olam Habah. See the commentaries on Berachos (17a) which asks what is the basis that women get Olam Habah - and answers because they provide a support system for their husband and children to learn Torah. The clear implication is that those women who don't provide a support system for Torah learning - do not get Olam Habah.

Similarly the ignorant will not get Olam Habah unless they support Torah study

Kesubos(111b): R. Eleazar said; The illiterate will not be resurrected, for it is said in Scripture, The dead will not live etc.11 So it was also taught: The dead will not live. As this might [be assumed to refer] to all, it was specifically stated, The lax will not rise, [thus indicating] that the text speaks only of such a man as was lax in the study of the words of the Torah. Said R. Johanan to him: it is no satisfaction to their Master that you should speak to them in this manner. That text was written of a man who was so lax as to worship idols. ‘I’, the other replied, ‘make an exposition [to the same effect] from another text. For it is written in Scripture, For thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the dead. him who makes use of the ‘light’ of the Torah will the ‘light’ of the Torah revive, but him who makes no use of the light of the Torah the light of the Torah will not revive’. Observing, however, that he was distressed, he said to him, ‘Master, I have found for them a remedy in the Pentateuch: But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day; now is it possible to ‘cleave’ to the divine presence concerning which it is written in Scripture, For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire? But [the meaning is this:] Any man who marries his daughter to a scholar, or carries on a trade on behalf of scholars, or benefits scholars from his estate is regarded by Scripture as if he had cleaved to the divine presence. Similarly you read in Scripture, To love the Lord thy God, [to hearken to His voice,] and to cleave unto Him. Is it possible for a human being to ‘cleave’ unto the divine presence? But [what was meant is this:] Any man who marries his daughter to a scholar, or carries on a trade for scholars, or benefits scholars from his estate is regarded by Scripture as if he had cleaved to the divine presence.

Ramchal(Derech HaShem Chapter 2):[[

Rambam(Moreh Nevuchim (3:27;54)

Zohar(2:247b):

Rashbash[1](#324):[[
Pnei Yehoshua[2](Berachos 17a):[[
Chavrusa[3](Berachos 17a):[[

Possible resolution

The sources dealing with physical appearance appear to apply to both men and women and Jews and non-Jews. However clearly the Rambam and others understand image of G-d as an intellectual characteristic. From the issue of Olam Habah it would seem that the idea of image of G-d as well as the spirituality for Olam Habah need to be fulfilled by proper development through Torah and mitzvos and that only the potential is given. But there is a clear distinction between men and women.

Men have the image of G-d and get Olam Habah if they are talmidei chachomim while women are not inherently and independently in the image of G-d nor do they get Olam Habah or at least not that of the tzadikim.

Women's only choice is for true spirituality is that they subordinate their existence to the talmid chachom who is the true image of G-d. This is what the Abarbanel and Netziv both seem to indicate. Thus there are those who themselves are spiritual beings (inherently in the image of G-d through Torah and mitzvos) and there are those who by association and assistance of the focus of creation (man) get spiritual status (and they are only said or described as being in the image of G-d). Theoretically women could become talmidei chachomim and do all the mitzvos - but that is not their role. The concept of woman is one who provides support for the talmid chachom and her spiritual perfection is thus indirect- ezer kenegdo.

This distinction seems to fit all the sources