The real Torah view about women?!

amother

Bronze

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 1:50 pm

Whenever I come across these types of questions I feel so grateful to have been born Chabad and have the opportunity to study how chassidus puts it all in perspective. What is woman. What is man. What each ones place is in fulfilling creation. How this checks out with all kinds of halachos and comments of the chachamim. And it all makes so much consistent sense. No competing. And all G-Dly. Its not something possible to go in depth here because there is so much automitcally jaded and misconstrued notions. A good place to start in English would be Chabad.org lectures on women and the feminine. Rabbi Mani's Friedman's lectures on 11213.org. And of course in hebrew and yiddisg the maamarim of chassidus Chabad and the teachings of the Rebbe.
Lots of hatzlacha and lots of hugs. Remember when moshiach comes isha tesovev gever and we are pending any minute now Smile

eschaya

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 1:54 pm

amother wrote:

If rabbanim were a product of their times does that mean that their prohibition against pleasuring (wasting seed) is void now due the scientific knowledge that we now have there is an unlimited supply of millions of sperm count?

Also, could open orthodoxy take off in a big way due to their equal treatment of women across all aspects of Judaism?

Halacha does not work that way. Once something is codified into halacha, whether the underlying premise actually matches the reality of today or not, we are bound by it. Lo bashamayim hi... halacha is not determined by the ultimate reality known by Hashem but rather by the determinations of humans, who are by definition flawed (yes, even the greatest humans who ever lived). So even if the premise was never based in reality, or if reality has changed over time, the halachos do not change. This may be unfortunate for us women, but it is how the halachic system works. Halacha does not become "void" (maybe in the time of mashiach?)
For me, though, being able to discount certain hurtful and damaging statements in our mesorah as mere reflections of society's misunderstanding of women has allowed me to continue to maintain a relationship with Hashem. I have no intrinsic desire to lay tefilin or join a minyan or be a witness in a bais din, but I do need to have my self-worth, my intelligence, my abilities, and my role in society validated, and this understanding does so for me.

dimyona

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 1:55 pm

eschaya wrote:

Back to the original question...
I struggled with this issue a while back (it's still not resolved for me, but I try to push it deep inside) and posted about this a few years ago. I read through many of the disturbing sources inside, and yes, they exist and from the pen of some very great and respected Torah scholars. But at the same time, I cannot - and will not ever - be able to reconcile those "truths" with what I know about myself and women in general.
Finally, I spoke to an adam gadol (R' Asher Weiss, please do not disseminate what he said in a private discussion as his psak or opinion) who recognized the issue and told me that if Gemarah were being codified today, and of course all the mefarshim that come after, it would look very different specifically in terms of how Torah shebe'al peh views and treats women. The implication is that, while I hesitate to use the word fallable, gedolim and important figures in our history were influenced by the prevailing ideas and thoughts of their times, which until modern history has considered women to be weak, fairly stupid, and incapable. In their defense, even though their ideas were no different than the rest of society, halacha did choose to treat women a lot better. Of course, in our times this doesn't pose much help. And for better or worse, since "lo biyedei shamayim hi", a lot of misogyny has been codified into halacha that binds us today.
But for me, allowing me to separate truth/what Hashem knows from the opinions of well-intentioned but fallible humans, has allowed me to continue to believe in Hashem (though my emunas chachamim is diminished, but with "sanction" from a very chareidi rav).

This is indeed the most plausible explanation for derabanan issues, but did he address any of these similar issues that come up in the Torah itself?

dimyona

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:01 pm

leah233 wrote:

I'm going suggest a really radical explanation. Maybe it us not Chazal who are products of our time.

Of course we are! Chazal means chachamim, who are also people, and with the way halacha has evolved over the centuries, it's clear that generational influence is a very strong force.

Or, is your radical explanation that women are indeed intellectually inferior, don't have a neshama, and are not created with a tzelem elokim?

Are you interested in facts, or will you stick to this narrative regardless?

amother

Chocolate

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:03 pm

leah233 wrote:

I'm going suggest a really radical explanation. Maybe it us not Chazal who are products of our time. Not that I believe Chazal viewed women as being inherently inferior I'm just responding to the "product of their time" idea.

We are products of our time, and so are they. It's not a contradiction at all, in fact it supports it.

leah233

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:11 pm

dimyona wrote:

I think women think differently from men. I do not believe the later two examples are wide spread teachings or beliefs in Chazal or in the mesora . Even if you find me a source or two that says it.

Today's enlightened society which claims to be so science based seems to have major difficulty understanding the difference between a X and Y chromosome to say the least. I don't think it's views are necessarily based on fact or superior morals .

Last edited by leah233 on Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

eschaya

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:11 pm

leah233 wrote:

We are products of our time, as have been every human who has come before us.
Hashem is the only God, the only omnipotent, omniscient Being who has existed.
I can respect talmidei chachamim, but that doesn't mean I place them on the same standing as Hashem. Even Moshe rabbeinu made mistakes. Every human has flaws and is a product of their times. (yes, of course we are too)
Many of chazal did believe (or at least write) that women are inferior. If you had read the original article you might recall that the Abarbenel believes that women do not get olam haba. Did they teach that to you in seminary? Or that the reason in bereishis it says regarding the creation of man/woman "zachar unekaivah bara osem" is to teach us that unlike all other species where the male/female are equal, among humans, the males are superior than females? I bet you didn't learn that in bais yaakov. Or the plethora of chazal who equate women with children in terms of cognition and abilities. When faced with these "truths", some us choose not to bury our heads in the sand but to struggle to find ways to reconcile our faith and beliefs with our intrinsic recognition of our own self-worth. It has been painful, and frightening sometimes, but for those of us who live with our eyes open, necessary.

leah233

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:18 pm

eschaya wrote:

Many of chazal did believe (or at least write) that women are inferior. If you had read the original article you might recall that the Abarbenel believes that women do not get olam haba. Did they teach that to you in seminary? .

No. They taught us in seminary that the gemorah says twice that women get schar for "Noshim B'Mai zacyan" IF the Ababerbanel says different then you have a question on the Aberbanel.

They also taught us that Zevulan shares s'char with Yissocer. I have no problem whatsoever with thinking that Yisocher the Talmid Chocom is superior to Zevulan who shares his schar.

dimyona

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:22 pm

leah233 wrote:

Every man has a choice whether he'll be a Yisocher or Zevulan, which is usually based on the individual's capabilities.

A woman's role is defined purely by reproductive organs.

marina

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:29 pm

leah233 wrote:

Did you learn the shulchan aruch in seminary? The part where a drowning man is saved over a drowning woman because his life is categorically worth more than hers?

eschaya

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:31 pm

leah233 wrote:

Most of us recognize that there are differences between men and women. Stating that women are not inferior or cognitively impaired does not mean we think there are no differences.
By the way, what do you think is "the difference between a[n] X and Y chromosome"? Since you imply that "science" has it wrong, please enlighten us.

leah233

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:42 pm

marina wrote:

Did you learn the shulchan aruch in seminary? The part where a drowning man is saved over a drowning woman because his life is categorically worth more than hers?

Every society has it's own rules and values of whose life to save first when only one of two people can be saved. I'm not going to debate those values here. I'm confident that if the Torah had a "women and children first" policy no one here would have any issue with it.

Last edited by leah233 on Tue, Dec 06 2016, 3:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

dimyona

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 2:54 pm

leah233 wrote:

I do not think science has it wrong. I think today's enlightened intellectuals who think gender is a matter of choice have it wrong.

Gender fluidity/transgender issues are a completely different topic, and I probably agree with you more on that front. But that has nothing to do with whether women are considered inferior beings.

baschabad

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 9:51 pm

amother wrote:

I'm Lubavitch (well duh, see my username!) but that didn't protect me from the doubts that arose regarding feminism and Judaism. In fact, the realization that Torah contains a lot of misogyny was a even harsher slap on the face, considering that I had mostly been shielded from exposure to those ideas by being served huge doses of chassidic apologetics.
Clearly, not everyone sees it that way, and I don't seek to make anyone else uncomfortable, but I want to point to you that the chassidus that is meaningful to you is liable to be viewed by others as well-developed apologism.

The concept of mashpia/mekabel that used to be comforting to me, now sounds like a way of putting women in their place: out of the way and always submissive.

amother

Sapphire

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 11:30 pm

From a young age, I was taught that girls don't wear a yarmulka because we always know Hashem is above us, while boys forget so they need the extra reminder.

I also learned the rashi that the women were told about matan Torah first (Ko tomar l'bais yaakov alu hanashim) because the women set the tome for the home, and have the most influence in matters of ruchniyus due to our innate connection with Hashem.

And speaking of Rashi, didn't he teach his daughters gemara? So he couldn't have thought too low of their intelligence I assume.

And the righteous wives who influenced their husbands for good or bad, (eshes korach, etc).

We learned about Sara emeinu having hundreds or thousands of students whom she taught about Hashem--and whom Hashem saw fit to speak with directly!, Tziporah saving Moshe's life by giving their son a bris, fearless Yael killing Sisra with the tent peg, Malkas Shva, the most powerful ruler of her time (until shlomo hamelech), the wife of Rabi Akiva getting credit for his learning, etc. etc.

Iow, these women would seem to contradict the characterization of women being useless and dumb.

I think there's enough there to say this is more than mere "apologetics".

Eta. Forgot to add, all of the instances where Hashem's attributes are compared to female, kaballah, etc. Hashem is baal rachamim which comes from rechem, etc

amother

Violet

Tue, Dec 06 2016, 11:40 pm

amother wrote:

From a young age, I was taught that girls don't wear a yarmulka because we always know Hashem is above us, while boys forget so they need the extra reminder.

I also learned the rashi that the women were told about matan Torah first (Ko tomar l'bais yaakov alu hanashim) because the women set the tome for the home, and have the most influence in matters of ruchniyus due to our innate connection with Hashem.

And speaking of Rashi, didn't he teach his daughters gemara? So he couldn't have thought too low of their intelligence I assume.

And the righteous wives who influenced their husbands for good or bad, (eshes korach, etc).

We learned about Sara emeinu having hundreds or thousands of students whom she taught about Hashem, Tziporah saving Moshe's life by giving their son a bris, fearless Yael killing Sisra with the tent peg, Malkas Shva, the most powerful ruler of her time (until shlomo hamelech), the wife of Rabi Akiva getting credit for his learning, etc. etc.

Iow, these women would seem to contradict the characterization of women being useless and dumb.

I think there's enough there to say this is more than mere "apologetics".

The fact that you learned a few cherry picked sources doesn't mean that you see the larger picture. If anything, you've gotten a deliberately distorted view. It's hard to look at the corpus of halacha without getting the distinct impression that our religion considers women to be mentally, physically and spiritually inferior to men.

Ok, but what are we going to do about it? Nothing. The halacha of wiping out Amalek doesn't sit well with me either. And it doesn't matter. Hashem isn't in the business of making me feel good about myself.

All monotheism is patriarchal. We can try to make religious life as comfortable and inclusive as halacha allows, but at the end of the day, we're going to have to live with an uncomfortable reality.

amother

Cerulean

Wed, Dec 07 2016, 12:21 am

dimyona wrote:

Every man has a choice whether he'll be a Yisocher or Zevulan, which is usually based on the individual's capabilities.

A woman's role is defined purely by reproductive organs.

You contradicted yourself.
If a man's choices are usually based on his capabilities, then he doesn't have much of a choice, does he?