The primary source from the Torah is "vehu yimshal bah (bach? Not sure)." If anyone is going to argue that pasuk is subject to interpretation, please go read what all the mefarshim say on it. Let me me know what is unclear about it. And sorry, but I don't believe in "that doesn't apply today" unless you have alternate sources to back that up. We don't dismiss parts of the Torah as we see fit.
You'll notice some other things reading Bereishis:
1) Men are not trustworthy in teaching halacha vs chumra
2) A man ruling over women is a curse, something I try to avoid
3) Men were cursed with working the land - does that mean a man who doesn't farm his own food is avoiding the curse? Or those in Kollel who aren't working at all?
Ah Bereishis. Its a fun parsha.
1) One man made a mistake. How is this generalized to all men? And what do you suggest are the implications?
2) a curse, meaning G-d changed the world and its nature to follow this curse. Women were also cursed with pain in childbirth. The only way you can avoid that is not to have children (or minimize it via pain management). You can avoid this curse by not associating with any men, but you can't undo a curse. It is already in place. That is the new nature of the world.
3) men are cursed with earning a living through the sweat of their brow, not specifically by working the land. This means that they must put in effort to earn a living; it is no longer handed down directly from G-d without being concealed. Someone who is learning in kollel still has to come up with money somehow, and that worry and effort is part of the curse.
Haven't read it but I assume it is according to a particular hashkofo as are most modern books. Which one?
Customs going according to a husband, unless they have to do with TH or female intimate issues (birth, etc.) traditionally go by the husband according to what I learned was a halochic shita. That doesn't mean that a husband can't allow a wife to go by her own customs or to decide to even adopt her customs. but that has to be a decision that he makes. If he doesn't want to let her, no rov can force him to.
The primary source from the Torah is "vehu yimshal bah (bach? Not sure)." If anyone is going to argue that pasuk is subject to interpretation, please go read what all the mefarshim say on it. Let me me know what is unclear about it. And sorry, but I don't believe in "that doesn't apply today" unless you have alternate sources to back that up. We don't dismiss parts of the Torah as we see fit.
You left out the 3 proceding words. The quote is talking about marital relations- she will desire her husband but he will rule over her since he needs to be willing to partake in the act in order for her to do it. That's how what all the mefarshim say on it. Nothing to do with him "wearing the pants."
The primary source from the Torah is "vehu yimshal bah (bach? Not sure)." If anyone is going to argue that pasuk is subject to interpretation, please go read what all the mefarshim say on it. Let me me know what is unclear about it. And sorry, but I don't believe in "that doesn't apply today" unless you have alternate sources to back that up. We don't dismiss parts of the Torah as we see fit.
You left out the 3 proceding words. The quote is talking about marital relations- she will desire her husband but he will rule over her since he needs to be willing to partake in the act in order for her to do it. That's how what all the mefarshim say on it. Nothing to do with him "wearing the pants."
I'm sorry, it does not sound like you read all the mefarshim. That pasuk is translated that way very literally, but the mefarshim have a lot more to say.
The primary source from the Torah is "vehu yimshal bah (bach? Not sure)." If anyone is going to argue that pasuk is subject to interpretation, please go read what all the mefarshim say on it. Let me me know what is unclear about it. And sorry, but I don't believe in "that doesn't apply today" unless you have alternate sources to back that up. We don't dismiss parts of the Torah as we see fit.
You'll notice some other things reading Bereishis:
1) Men are not trustworthy in teaching halacha vs chumra
2) A man ruling over women is a curse, something I try to avoid
3) Men were cursed with working the land - does that mean a man who doesn't farm his own food is avoiding the curse? Or those in Kollel who aren't working at all?
Ah Bereishis. Its a fun parsha.
1. Notice exactly WHAT is said. Honestly, it doesn't have to do with making decisions. It is, B"H a way of keeping reproduction going. "In pain you will give birth to children, but your desire shall be to your husband and he (or it, ie the desire) shall rule over thee."
2. This wasn't a commandment. It didn't say "Wives obey your husband." It could be taken as fact, not a preference.
3. The curses were lifted with Noah.
The primary source from the Torah is "vehu yimshal bah (bach? Not sure)." If anyone is going to argue that pasuk is subject to interpretation, please go read what all the mefarshim say on it. Let me me know what is unclear about it. And sorry, but I don't believe in "that doesn't apply today" unless you have alternate sources to back that up. We don't dismiss parts of the Torah as we see fit.
You'll notice some other things reading Bereishis:
1) Men are not trustworthy in teaching halacha vs chumra
2) A man ruling over women is a curse, something I try to avoid
3) Men were cursed with working the land - does that mean a man who doesn't farm his own food is avoiding the curse? Or those in Kollel who aren't working at all?
Ah Bereishis. Its a fun parsha.
1) One man made a mistake. How is this generalized to all men? And what do you suggest are the implications?
2) a curse, meaning G-d changed the world and its nature to follow this curse. Women were also cursed with pain in childbirth. The only way you can avoid that is not to have children (or minimize it via pain management). You can avoid this curse by not associating with any men, but you can't undo a curse. It is already in place. That is the new nature of the world.
3) men are cursed with earning a living through the sweat of their brow, not specifically by working the land. This means that they must put in effort to earn a living; it is no longer handed down directly from G-d without being concealed. Someone who is learning in kollel still has to come up with money somehow, and that worry and effort is part of the curse.
1. Right. One man, one woman erred. The rest of us aren't Chava.
2. The curses were lifted with Noah.
3. That's a real long shot as men and women generally worry about money. But Chava wasn't curses with having to worry about money. So by your reckoning men have to do that worrying not women.
The primary source from the Torah is "vehu yimshal bah (bach? Not sure)." If anyone is going to argue that pasuk is subject to interpretation, please go read what all the mefarshim say on it. Let me me know what is unclear about it. And sorry, but I don't believe in "that doesn't apply today" unless you have alternate sources to back that up. We don't dismiss parts of the Torah as we see fit.
You left out the 3 proceding words. The quote is talking about marital relations- she will desire her husband but he will rule over her since he needs to be willing to partake in the act in order for her to do it. That's how what all the mefarshim say on it. Nothing to do with him "wearing the pants."
What do you all think of the fact that men control finances in Judaism? If a married woman works, her earnings belong to her husband unless she waives her right to spousal support. If a man dies, his son inherits all, unless a halachic will states otherwise. If a woman marries, her husband has the right to control any property she owns. These are halacha.
The primary source from the Torah is "vehu yimshal bah (bach? Not sure)." If anyone is going to argue that pasuk is subject to interpretation, please go read what all the mefarshim say on it. Let me me know what is unclear about it. And sorry, but I don't believe in "that doesn't apply today" unless you have alternate sources to back that up. We don't dismiss parts of the Torah as we see fit.
You'll notice some other things reading Bereishis:
1) Men are not trustworthy in teaching halacha vs chumra
2) A man ruling over women is a curse, something I try to avoid
3) Men were cursed with working the land - does that mean a man who doesn't farm his own food is avoiding the curse? Or those in Kollel who aren't working at all?
Ah Bereishis. Its a fun parsha.
1) One man made a mistake. How is this generalized to all men? And what do you suggest are the implications?
2) a curse, meaning G-d changed the world and its nature to follow this curse. Women were also cursed with pain in childbirth. The only way you can avoid that is not to have children (or minimize it via pain management). You can avoid this curse by not associating with any men, but you can't undo a curse. It is already in place. That is the new nature of the world.
3) men are cursed with earning a living through the sweat of their brow, not specifically by working the land. This means that they must put in effort to earn a living; it is no longer handed down directly from G-d without being concealed. Someone who is learning in kollel still has to come up with money somehow, and that worry and effort is part of the curse.
1) It was kind of tongue in cheek, sorry I didn't put in an emoticon, but people were talking about the man being the spiritual provider (or was that in the thread that was linked? I'm starting to get confused)
2) That is one way of looking at it. I explained the way I was taught in school. I think it was R' Soloveitchik or Rav Hirsch who's view it was? I don't remember though.
3) I know people who don't worry about money at all because "Hashem will provide" (and I mean literally don't worry). And if they don't have to worry, I don't have to be subservient.
What do you all think of the fact that men control finances in Judaism? If a married woman works, her earnings belong to her husband unless she waives her right to spousal support. If a man dies, his son inherits all, unless a halachic will states otherwise. If a woman marries, her husband has the right to control any property she owns. These are halacha.
This makes me happy I live in America. And that I work.
What do you all think of the fact that men control finances in Judaism? If a married woman works, her earnings belong to her husband unless she waives her right to spousal support. If a man dies, his son inherits all, unless a halachic will states otherwise. If a woman marries, her husband has the right to control any property she owns. These are halacha.
This makes me happy I live in America. And that I work.
What does that have anything to do with Jewish law? Sure, you can go to secular court and demand whatever your are legally entitled to as a US citizen. But the fact remains that Judaism has a different perception, and that's what I'm pointing out- 21st century or not, the Torah does not treat men and women as equal in terms of rights. As long as you claim to follow the Torah/halacha, this is no different from anything else.
Hey, I thought all we women knew the men's dicta, like honoring one's wife more than himself, bending down to listen, etc.
B"H it works in practice. Quite well. And when it does, there are no questions...
What do you all think of the fact that men control finances in Judaism? If a married woman works, her earnings belong to her husband unless she waives her right to spousal support. If a man dies, his son inherits all, unless a halachic will states otherwise. If a woman marries, her husband has the right to control any property she owns. These are halacha.
This makes me happy I live in America. And that I work.
What does that have anything to do with Jewish law? Sure, you can go to secular court and demand whatever your are legally entitled to as a US citizen. But the fact remains that Judaism has a different perception, and that's what I'm pointing out- 21st century or not, the Torah does not treat men and women as equal in terms of rights. As long as you claim to follow the Torah/halacha, this is no different from anything else.
I work. Therefore, I have decided to absolve my husband's right to support me and my salary is my own.
But yes, I don't agree with how the Torah handles finances. I think it worked back in the days where women didn't really have any financial standings, but I think you are kidding yourself if you think rabbonim advocate going according to the historical Jewish ways of handling finances.
How many wills do you know of that give the bechor a double share and leave out women? I personally know of none (ranging from LWMO to RW/Charedi). Not that I know that many people's wills, but of those I do, none are like that.
What do you all think of the fact that men control finances in Judaism? If a married woman works, her earnings belong to her husband unless she waives her right to spousal support. If a man dies, his son inherits all, unless a halachic will states otherwise. If a woman marries, her husband has the right to control any property she owns. These are halacha.
This makes me happy I live in America. And that I work.
What does that have anything to do with Jewish law? Sure, you can go to secular court and demand whatever your are legally entitled to as a US citizen. But the fact remains that Judaism has a different perception, and that's what I'm pointing out- 21st century or not, the Torah does not treat men and women as equal in terms of rights. As long as you claim to follow the Torah/halacha, this is no different from anything else.
I work. Therefore, I have decided to absolve my husband's right to support me and my salary is my own.
But yes, I don't agree with how the Torah handles finances. I think it worked back in the days where women didn't really have any financial standings, but I think you are kidding yourself if you think rabbonim advocate going according to the historical Jewish ways of handling finances.
How many wills do you know of that give the bechor a double share and leave out women? I personally know of none (ranging from LWMO to RW/Charedi). Not that I know that many people's wills, but of those I do, none are like that.
If that's your choice, it works within halacha. I don't think rabbanim are advocating anything. All I know is that halacha has not changed in this regard, even in 2011. And rabbanim are not ignoring that. It's not a historical Jewish way, it's halacha, whether or not you like it (and I don't, btw).
Mishpacha actually ran an article recently on a frum, female attorney who specializes in wills and estates. She emphasized the importance of writing up a halachic will, yes, even today. Without it, you run into problems of what Jewish law allows vs what the secular will states.
My point in bringing this up altogether is- everyone is up in arms about husband and wife being equal, having an equal say in everything, etc. Well, halacha disagrees.
