 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Interesting Discussions
PinkFridge
|
 Mon, Apr 29 2013, 3:54 pm
| bamamama wrote: |
Miriam Webster says:
Apologetics - systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
I'd agree with this and I believe it upholds the discussion we're having. What are the defensive arguments in Judaism which are used to explain women's roles? |
I suppose that a standard, age-old dictionary named for men (Charles and George Merriam, Noah Webster) wouldn't be considered legitimate, would it.
ETA:  And apologies for not doing so sooner, I'm usually so liberal with the smilies.
Last edited by PinkFridge on Tue, Apr 30 2013, 7:15 am; edited 1 time in total
| |
|
| Back to top |
 1
|
bamamama
|
Mon, Apr 29 2013, 4:43 pm
| PinkFridge wrote: | | bamamama wrote: |
Miriam Webster says:
Apologetics - systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
I'd agree with this and I believe it upholds the discussion we're having. What are the defensive arguments in Judaism which are used to explain women's roles? |
I suppose that a standard, age-old dictionary named for men (Charles and George Merriam, Noah Webster) wouldn't be considered legitimate, would it. |
Seriously, though. I'm guessing you said this tongue-and-cheek but I do want to clarify that what we are arguing is completely and totally different than dismissing all men, ever.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
marina
|
Mon, Apr 29 2013, 5:58 pm
The apologetics, as I see it, began in earnest with the advent of feminism, when it no longer became acceptable to just explain that women are less worthy.
Did you all already say this?
| |
|
| Back to top |
4
|
bamamama
|
Mon, Apr 29 2013, 6:05 pm
| marina wrote: | The apologetics, as I see it, began in earnest with the advent of feminism, when it no longer became acceptable to just explain that women are less worthy.
Did you all already say this? | inthe tallit and tefillin thread we started discussing it. I said I bet the apologetics took the fore when the kiruv movement really got going. Then PF said she had a pamphlet from the 70s whih quoted Rav Hirsch saying some of the things we hear now so that pointed to earlier origins than feminism or the kiruv movement. The first quote in my first post explains why Rav Hirsch wrote apologetics for women's roles.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
poelmamosh
|
Mon, Apr 29 2013, 6:09 pm
IMHO any discussion that involves both current societal norms and Torah concepts is by nature defined as apologetics. A perspective of what is kabbalistically termed "Olam b'pshitus" (I.e. the world exists and Torah/halacha is superimposed upon it) will necessitate engagement in some type of mental calesthenics if you want it all to line up perfectly. There's another worldview out there...well, that's for my other thread (hint: it has less "world" to it than view). Whatever.
Alternatively, bamamama, I'm thinking you may be saying that you see the question as better than any one answer. I get that and I'm cool with that:)
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
bamamama
|
Mon, Apr 29 2013, 9:24 pm
| poelmamosh wrote: | IMHO any discussion that involves both current societal norms and Torah concepts is by nature defined as apologetics. A perspective of what is kabbalistically termed "Olam b'pshitus" (I.e. the world exists and Torah/halacha is superimposed upon it) will necessitate engagement in some type of mental calesthenics if you want it all to line up perfectly. There's another worldview out there...well, that's for my other thread (hint: it has less "world" to it than view). Whatever.
Alternatively, bamamama, I'm thinking you may be saying that you see the question as better than any one answer. I get that and I'm cool with that:) |
Kind of. I think what irritates me is the white-washing brand of apologetics. If Jewish thought has been a product of cultural norms throughout the ages in the varying locations where Jewish communities exist the world over, I think it's important to acknowledge that some of what we practice really is a result of those cultural norms.
The mechitza really is the best example. When Rav instituted the custom of mechitza at the Simchat Beit HaShoeivah in the Beit HaMikdash, it was accepted that, to preserve modesty and dignity of all involved, men and women should be separated. Fine. That's the origin based in Zecharya. THIS I can accept. That we then have adopted this practice in our own shuls and on other occasions - fine.
I see absolutely no reason to get into ideas of how special women are that they need to be hidden away like precious jewels, etc. To me, that is white-washing. That is apologizing for something that really can be explained easily. It's unnecessary and even harmful. It underestimates people's intelligence and seeks to placate rather than educate.
| |
|
| Back to top |
4
|
amother
|
Mon, Apr 29 2013, 11:45 pm
| bamamama wrote: | | miami85 wrote: | I'm not sure I understand your point.
|
We are discussing the history of apologetics. If Rabbi Dr. Lamm wrote what you say he did, indeed it is apologetics.
It's not really the topic of this thread so I'll quote BlueRose52 from the other thread:
| BlueRose52 wrote: | And I've always been baffled how women are so eager to avoid seeing the discrimination that is right in front of their eyes. Well, not really. I used to think like that too, so it's actually totally understandable to me.
Maybe this will help you understand another perspective: I don't see these aspects of Judaism as inherent to our tradition. I see them as the parts of our tradition that were meant for a different era, and are supposed to be left behind through the evolving nature of our tradition.
Now, before you jump down my throat that this is total kefira and I'm sounding like a reform rebbetzin, keep in mind that slavery was once the norm and there are laws in the Torah for it, and genocide and rape were acceptable tactics in war and there are laws for those things too, but despite these things being in the Torah, we don't live by those standards anymore. I see these patriarchal laws in the same light, reflecting how society functioned back then, but not something we need to aspire to in our own era. I understand that this might be hard to swallow. But consider this: the Torah also says the punishment for a rapist is 50 shekels (to the girl's father) and the obligation to marry her (if she consents). Do you find it difficult saying that that's clearly a law applicable to a certain society and a certain time and not relevant anymore? I don't.
The truth is, it doesn't bother me at all if you don't view these issues as I do. If you have your own way of reconciling the many ways Jewish tradition treats women as second-class, that's totally fine with me. Honestly. But please, let's not pretend that these things doesn't exist. | |
Bluerose is SPOT ON.... So is Bananamama in the post just above.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
celestial
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 6:51 am
| bamamama wrote: | | poelmamosh wrote: | IMHO any discussion that involves both current societal norms and Torah concepts is by nature defined as apologetics. A perspective of what is kabbalistically termed "Olam b'pshitus" (I.e. the world exists and Torah/halacha is superimposed upon it) will necessitate engagement in some type of mental calesthenics if you want it all to line up perfectly. There's another worldview out there...well, that's for my other thread (hint: it has less "world" to it than view). Whatever.
Alternatively, bamamama, I'm thinking you may be saying that you see the question as better than any one answer. I get that and I'm cool with that:) |
Kind of. I think what irritates me is the white-washing brand of apologetics. If Jewish thought has been a product of cultural norms throughout the ages in the varying locations where Jewish communities exist the world over, I think it's important to acknowledge that some of what we practice really is a result of those cultural norms.
The mechitza really is the best example. When Rav instituted the custom of mechitza at the Simchat Beit HaShoeivah in the Beit HaMikdash, it was accepted that, to preserve modesty and dignity of all involved, men and women should be separated. Fine. That's the origin based in Zecharya. THIS I can accept. That we then have adopted this practice in our own shuls and on other occasions - fine.
I see absolutely no reason to get into ideas of how special women are that they need to be hidden away like precious jewels, etc. To me, that is white-washing. That is apologizing for something that really can be explained easily. It's unnecessary and even harmful. It underestimates people's intelligence and seeks to placate rather than educate. |
Spot on, banana!
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
PinkFridge
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 7:18 am
| bamamama wrote: | | marina wrote: | The apologetics, as I see it, began in earnest with the advent of feminism, when it no longer became acceptable to just explain that women are less worthy.
Did you all already say this? | inthe tallit and tefillin thread we started discussing it. I said I bet the apologetics took the fore when the kiruv movement really got going. Then PF said she had a pamphlet from the 70s whih quoted Rav Hirsch saying some of the things we hear now so that pointed to earlier origins than feminism or the kiruv movement. The first quote in my first post explains why Rav Hirsch wrote apologetics for women's roles. |
And I hope this discussion continues without getting bogged down by semantics, even though I may have done my bit.
And I still do plan to read the pamphlet, just not sure when. And I also hope that no one feels that the rest of Rav Hirsch is summarily discredited, I don't think that's anyone's intention.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
bamamama
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 10:36 am
Ok, I've found another source and will post quotes for discussion or just for the record
From The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychohistorical Perspective by Rabbi Menachem M. Brayer, Professor of Biblical Literature at YU
http://books.google.ca/books?I.....false
| Quote: | | The Maharal of Prague states: Man was given the mitzvot to enable him to learn to overcome his aggression and aspire to higher spiritual perfection. Not so woman, who was bestowed with greater potential for spiritual growth. She requires fewer mitzvot to attain that goal. Referring to the Talmud (Ber. 17a), the Maharal of Prague recognizes women's inherent quality and potential for spirituality and that, therefore, she is capable of achieving higher levels of perfection than man, without the rigorous mitzvah-training assigned to men. |
The Talmud passage referred to - Berachot 17a (quoting the Artscroll translation):
| Quote: | (Rav says) Greater is the promise that HKBH made to the women than to the men, - as it is stated: "You women that are at ease, rise up and hear my voice - you confident daughters, give ear to my speech." (Isaiah 32:9).
Rav said to R' Chiya: Through what deeds to women indeed merit eternal life? Through going to the trouble of bringing their children to the synagogue to learn scripture, and through sending their husbands to the study hall to learn Mishneh and Gemara, and for waiting for their husbands until they come home from the study hall. |
and I'd like to take this time to remind myself that this thread is on the HISTORY of apologetics for women's roles in Judaism so I will, for now, refrain from giving my thoughts on the issue.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
poelmamosh
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 10:42 am
| bamamama wrote: | | poelmamosh wrote: | IMHO any discussion that involves both current societal norms and Torah concepts is by nature defined as apologetics. A perspective of what is kabbalistically termed "Olam b'pshitus" (I.e. the world exists and Torah/halacha is superimposed upon it) will necessitate engagement in some type of mental calesthenics if you want it all to line up perfectly. There's another worldview out there...well, that's for my other thread (hint: it has less "world" to it than view). Whatever.
Alternatively, bamamama, I'm thinking you may be saying that you see the question as better than any one answer. I get that and I'm cool with that:) |
Kind of. I think what irritates me is the white-washing brand of apologetics. If Jewish thought has been a product of cultural norms throughout the ages in the varying locations where Jewish communities exist the world over, I think it's important to acknowledge that some of what we practice really is a result of those cultural norms.
The mechitza really is the best example. When Rav instituted the custom of mechitza at the Simchat Beit HaShoeivah in the Beit HaMikdash, it was accepted that, to preserve modesty and dignity of all involved, men and women should be separated. Fine. That's the origin based in Zecharya. THIS I can accept. That we then have adopted this practice in our own shuls and on other occasions - fine.
I see absolutely no reason to get into ideas of how special women are that they need to be hidden away like precious jewels, etc. To me, that is white-washing. That is apologizing for something that really can be explained easily. It's unnecessary and even harmful. It underestimates people's intelligence and seeks to placate rather than educate. |
The bolded is a general concept about tznius, not mechitza AFAIK, so your concerns are valid. It doesn't mean that the theory is wrong as a stand-alone idea, despite the fact that it doesn't talk to you (or me, for the matter). You might enjoy "Outgoing Woman" on chabad.org. (this talk of the Rebbe has some personal significance, too, btw). Here's a snippet:
| Quote: | | So Dinah’s going out to make the acquaintance of the daughters of the land was fully in keeping with her and her mother’s unique gifts. Her exposure to an alien environment would not have adversely affected her Jewish femininity, her “king’s daughter’s” inner glory. On the contrary: she was born to the role of the outgoing Jewish woman, who serves as a source of enlightenment to her surroundings without compromising her modesty and innerness. Rather, it was Jacob’s attempt to closet her that invited disaster. In going out to “the daughters of the land,” Dinah was truly the daughter of Leah—in the positive sense. She was not the daughter of Jacob, for Jacob had hesitated to put her outgoing nature to its intended use. |
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
bamamama
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 1:20 pm
| poelmamosh wrote: | | bamamama wrote: | | poelmamosh wrote: | IMHO any discussion that involves both current societal norms and Torah concepts is by nature defined as apologetics. A perspective of what is kabbalistically termed "Olam b'pshitus" (I.e. the world exists and Torah/halacha is superimposed upon it) will necessitate engagement in some type of mental calesthenics if you want it all to line up perfectly. There's another worldview out there...well, that's for my other thread (hint: it has less "world" to it than view). Whatever.
Alternatively, bamamama, I'm thinking you may be saying that you see the question as better than any one answer. I get that and I'm cool with that:) |
Kind of. I think what irritates me is the white-washing brand of apologetics. If Jewish thought has been a product of cultural norms throughout the ages in the varying locations where Jewish communities exist the world over, I think it's important to acknowledge that some of what we practice really is a result of those cultural norms.
The mechitza really is the best example. When Rav instituted the custom of mechitza at the Simchat Beit HaShoeivah in the Beit HaMikdash, it was accepted that, to preserve modesty and dignity of all involved, men and women should be separated. Fine. That's the origin based in Zecharya. THIS I can accept. That we then have adopted this practice in our own shuls and on other occasions - fine.
I see absolutely no reason to get into ideas of how special women are that they need to be hidden away like precious jewels, etc. To me, that is white-washing. That is apologizing for something that really can be explained easily. It's unnecessary and even harmful. It underestimates people's intelligence and seeks to placate rather than educate. |
The bolded is a general concept about tznius, not mechitza AFAIK, so your concerns are valid. It doesn't mean that the theory is wrong as a stand-alone idea, despite the fact that it doesn't talk to you (or me, for the matter). You might enjoy "Outgoing Woman" on chabad.org. (this talk of the Rebbe has some personal significance, too, btw). Here's a snippet:
| Quote: | | So Dinah’s going out to make the acquaintance of the daughters of the land was fully in keeping with her and her mother’s unique gifts. Her exposure to an alien environment would not have adversely affected her Jewish femininity, her “king’s daughter’s” inner glory. On the contrary: she was born to the role of the outgoing Jewish woman, who serves as a source of enlightenment to her surroundings without compromising her modesty and innerness. Rather, it was Jacob’s attempt to closet her that invited disaster. In going out to “the daughters of the land,” Dinah was truly the daughter of Leah—in the positive sense. She was not the daughter of Jacob, for Jacob had hesitated to put her outgoing nature to its intended use. | |
For now I'm sticking to the historicity of the matter. What you seem to have posted is an apologetic. Thanks for adding evidence to my claim that kiruv websites are full of white-washing. On the other thread, Miami85 mentioned women behind a mechitza as being like jewels which are too precious to be on display.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
PinkFridge
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 2:06 pm
| bamamama wrote: | Ok, I've found another source and will post quotes for discussion or just for the record
From The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychohistorical Perspective by Rabbi Menachem M. Brayer, Professor of Biblical Literature at YU
http://books.google.ca/books?I.....false
| Quote: | | The Maharal of Prague states: Man was given the mitzvot to enable him to learn to overcome his aggression and aspire to higher spiritual perfection. Not so woman, who was bestowed with greater potential for spiritual growth. She requires fewer mitzvot to attain that goal. Referring to the Talmud (Ber. 17a), the Maharal of Prague recognizes women's inherent quality and potential for spirituality and that, therefore, she is capable of achieving higher levels of perfection than man, without the rigorous mitzvah-training assigned to men. |
The Talmud passage referred to - Berachot 17a (quoting the Artscroll translation):
| Quote: | (Rav says) Greater is the promise that HKBH made to the women than to the men, - as it is stated: "You women that are at ease, rise up and hear my voice - you confident daughters, give ear to my speech." (Isaiah 32:9).
Rav said to R' Chiya: Through what deeds to women indeed merit eternal life? Through going to the trouble of bringing their children to the synagogue to learn scripture, and through sending their husbands to the study hall to learn Mishneh and Gemara, and for waiting for their husbands until they come home from the study hall. |
and I'd like to take this time to remind myself that this thread is on the HISTORY of apologetics for women's roles in Judaism so I will, for now, refrain from giving my thoughts on the issue. |
Aw, I'd love to know what you think, seriously. Because I'm not so clear on the concept. Is the Maharal quote considered apologetics, which as I understand it means some sort of rationalization to make people feel better, or a reflection of reality, metaphysical or otherwise? I don't Rabbi Brayer's book to be able to see any greater context but I sincerely know you not to be disingenuous: if you quote something it can stand as is.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
imasoftov
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 2:56 pm
| bamamama wrote: | | The mechitza really is the best example. When Rav instituted the custom of mechitza at the Simchat Beit HaShoeivah in the Beit HaMikdash, it was accepted that, to preserve modesty and dignity of all involved, men and women should be separated. Fine. That's the origin based in Zecharya. THIS I can accept. That we then have adopted this practice in our own shuls and on other occasions - fine. | That didn't sound right to me, because Rav was born after the Churban. I looked for a source mentioning mechitzah, Rav, and Zecharya and found on Sukkah 51b continuing onto the next page that Rav explained that earlier rabbis (during the time of the Beit Hamikdash) based themselves on Zecharya.
link to gemara
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
bamamama
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 3:47 pm
| imasoftov wrote: | | bamamama wrote: | | The mechitza really is the best example. When Rav instituted the custom of mechitza at the Simchat Beit HaShoeivah in the Beit HaMikdash, it was accepted that, to preserve modesty and dignity of all involved, men and women should be separated. Fine. That's the origin based in Zecharya. THIS I can accept. That we then have adopted this practice in our own shuls and on other occasions - fine. | That didn't sound right to me, because Rav was born after the Churban. I looked for a source mentioning mechitzah, Rav, and Zecharya and found on Sukkah 51b continuing onto the next page that Rav explained that earlier rabbis (during the time of the Beit Hamikdash) based themselves on Zecharya.
link to gemara |
Thanks for clarifying!!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
bamamama
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 4:11 pm
| PinkFridge wrote: | | bamamama wrote: | Ok, I've found another source and will post quotes for discussion or just for the record
From The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychohistorical Perspective by Rabbi Menachem M. Brayer, Professor of Biblical Literature at YU
http://books.google.ca/books?I.....false
| Quote: | | The Maharal of Prague states: Man was given the mitzvot to enable him to learn to overcome his aggression and aspire to higher spiritual perfection. Not so woman, who was bestowed with greater potential for spiritual growth. She requires fewer mitzvot to attain that goal. Referring to the Talmud (Ber. 17a), the Maharal of Prague recognizes women's inherent quality and potential for spirituality and that, therefore, she is capable of achieving higher levels of perfection than man, without the rigorous mitzvah-training assigned to men. |
The Talmud passage referred to - Berachot 17a (quoting the Artscroll translation):
| Quote: | (Rav says) Greater is the promise that HKBH made to the women than to the men, - as it is stated: "You women that are at ease, rise up and hear my voice - you confident daughters, give ear to my speech." (Isaiah 32:9).
Rav said to R' Chiya: Through what deeds to women indeed merit eternal life? Through going to the trouble of bringing their children to the synagogue to learn scripture, and through sending their husbands to the study hall to learn Mishneh and Gemara, and for waiting for their husbands until they come home from the study hall. |
and I'd like to take this time to remind myself that this thread is on the HISTORY of apologetics for women's roles in Judaism so I will, for now, refrain from giving my thoughts on the issue. |
Aw, I'd love to know what you think, seriously. Because I'm not so clear on the concept. Is the Maharal quote considered apologetics, which as I understand it means some sort of rationalization to make people feel better, or a reflection of reality, metaphysical or otherwise? I don't Rabbi Brayer's book to be able to see any greater context but I sincerely know you not to be disingenuous: if you quote something it can stand as is. |
The link is actually an online copy of the book. I just found it this morning by doing a google search for Rav Hirsch and women but I hope to have a look at it later in its entirety.
What I think?
I think they are both apologetics (the Talmud quote and the Maharal statement) based on the times in which they were written. Granted, the statements speak very positively of Jewish attitudes toward women during their respective timeframes - 3rd century CE and 16th century CE, respective. The problem is when we use the social norms of hundreds or thousands of years ago to try to fit women into the same box today.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
PinkFridge
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 4:21 pm
|
But I feel that those quotes brought by Rabbi Brayer are still relevant. I don't necessarily see it as limiting a woman to those roles as much as that if a woman is fully satisfied in those parameters, good for her. She's not lesser for not having any desires to fully explore what would be legitimately acceptable, e.g. tallis and tefillin.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
marina
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 4:29 pm
|
the gemara allegedly cited by the maharal doesn't make women look so great. I don't really understand why he cites it.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
poelmamosh
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 7:53 pm
| bamamama wrote: | | For now I'm sticking to the historicity of the matter. What you seem to have posted is an apologetic. Thanks for adding evidence to my claim that kiruv websites are full of white-washing. On the other thread, Miami85 mentioned women behind a mechitza as being like jewels which are too precious to be on display. |
(feel free to ignore any of my comments that you deem off-topic)
You keep saying apologetic as if it's a bad word. It's not. You are free to reject the answers or the process, but you cannot invalidate it as a bona-fide form of religious debate. Quoting your sources and then making the term interchangeable with "defeatist" or "specious" is disingenuous, at best.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
bamamama
|
Tue, Apr 30 2013, 9:23 pm
| marina wrote: | | the gemara allegedly cited by the maharal doesn't make women look so great. I don't really understand why he cites it. |
Meh. That Gemara is standard stuff - what are women's roles (as seen through the lens of 3rd century CE Babylonia)?
The Maharal's answer wouldn't impress me today, but it does for 400+ years ago.
So the Rabbi Brayer's online book is only a partial-book and it's not really well-cited. He veers really heavily into apologetics himself and often doesn't clarify exactly where his opinion starts and the Chazal he's quoting ends. I'll see what else I can turn up.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
| Related Topics |
Replies |
Last Post |
|
|
Basic tops for women lkwd or online
|
3 |
Sun, May 05 2024, 2:43 pm  |
|
|
The best slip on sneakers for women
|
2 |
Sun, May 05 2024, 1:20 pm |
|
|
Can you recover data/pics/history from a phone that has been
|
4 |
Thu, May 02 2024, 10:32 pm |
|
|
Is the Ashdod separate beach men or women today?
|
1 |
Sun, Apr 28 2024, 12:09 am |
|
|
Best Shopping experience ever as a plus size women
|
17 |
Sun, Apr 21 2024, 3:10 pm |
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
