He said first, this is the Biblical way (mainly land to keep together and in the tribe hence boys) by many it changed a loooong time ago. And even if you do that, the sons have to support mom at her previous level forever or until she remarries, and same for sisters. And he is not quite a feminist...
I have no idea what his basis is for indicating that a Halachic will is not necessary for women who would like an inheritance while adhering to halacha. AFAIK, it is widespread and recommended by all poskim today. Women are not Halachic heirs, whether in biblical times or in 2011. Married daughters would not be entitled to anything according to halacha otherwise.
First, dina de malchuta dina in most countries... and for a long time. Ask your own shaila.
Dina demalchuta does not apply when it is in direct contradiction with halacha. Someone can be 100% entitled to inheritance via law of the land, and still be stealing via halacha. That's why the Rama created a halachic will- to satisfy both without contradiction.
I have no problem with anyone who consults a knowledgeable posek and is told he doesn't need a halachic will. It doesn't as though anyone here has asked, though.
Traditionally in charedi and especially chassidish families a woman is referred to as a "home". My shteib, as my chassidish friends are referred to by their husbands.
I only heard of Syrians calling their wife my home, from an old Syrian community paper online; I have never heard anyone doing it IRL, and do not think most wives would like to be called a thing, even a very nice one!
As a big time feminist (?) I don't decide on menus or what we buy for the house alone. DH eats and lives here, too.
The mom/child bond is natural. But when kids grow a bit, they will go towards the parent that is more there for them. Hence daddy's girl/boy, it happens.
Quote:
Why is it in those of you who hold that there is a "recommended position" it's always that the MAN is on top? Does that mean that he owns you?
Ok, I tried to use my imagination, but I still don't see the link!
Harems were full of plots and jealousy and even murders. Yay.
I have no idea what his basis is for indicating that a Halachic will is not necessary for women who would like an inheritance while adhering to halacha. AFAIK, it is widespread and recommended by all poskim today. Women are not Halachic heirs, whether in biblical times or in 2011. Married daughters would not be entitled to anything according to halacha otherwise.
See what I wrote previously. In Israel, halachic courts award married daughters the exact same as married sons when there is no will (halachic or otherwise). So obviously married women can inherit even if there is no halachic will.
Most dining room tables are rectangular. Father sits on one end, mother at the other. Two heads. See, it is possible. That's how we do it, that's how most people I know do it. On Shabbat the kids wouldn't dream of sitting in my husband's chair or in mine, but during the week of course they do, the dining area is used for homework, etc.
I also have friends who bought a round table on purpose to avoid all this hierarchy. And believe me, the dad in that family is more of a mensch than most. No emasculation.
Like I said, respecting the man of the house does not mean there isn't respect for the woman of the house. Both are important, no one demands, and each respects the other.
I have big, big issues with avoiding hierarchy altogether in a home. Parents and children are not equals, that is just wrong. But thats a separate discussion.
Respecting the woman of the house also does not mean there isn't respect for th man of the house. There is no reason why a wife's seat can't be as important as a husbands, there is no reason why both can't be respected equally.
Of course there is a hierarchy; it goes, parents, children. It doesn't have to go Husband, wife, children.
You are perfectly entitled to your feelings. If you want to follow halacha, a woman may not sit in her husband's chair without permission. A man may sit in his wife's without permission. I'm not saying anyone has to follow any hierarchy in any particular area of life. I choose to follow the hierarchy set by halacha, which puts the man first in some instances and the woman first in others.
Most dining room tables are rectangular. Father sits on one end, mother at the other. Two heads. See, it is possible. That's how we do it, that's how most people I know do it. On Shabbat the kids wouldn't dream of sitting in my husband's chair or in mine, but during the week of course they do, the dining area is used for homework, etc.
I also have friends who bought a round table on purpose to avoid all this hierarchy. And believe me, the dad in that family is more of a mensch than most. No emasculation.
Like I said, respecting the man of the house does not mean there isn't respect for the woman of the house. Both are important, no one demands, and each respects the other.
I have big, big issues with avoiding hierarchy altogether in a home. Parents and children are not equals, that is just wrong. But thats a separate discussion.
Respecting the woman of the house also does not mean there isn't respect for th man of the house. There is no reason why a wife's seat can't be as important as a husbands, there is no reason why both can't be respected equally.
Of course there is a hierarchy; it goes, parents, children. It doesn't have to go Husband, wife, children.
You are perfectly entitled to your feelings. If you want to follow halacha, a woman may not sit in her husband's chair without permission. A man may sit in his wife's without permission. I'm not saying anyone has to follow any hierarchy in any particular area of life. I choose to follow the hierarchy set by halacha, which puts the man first in some instances and the woman first in others.
Nope. Sorry. Not what I learned.
There is a halacha about sitting in his seat when one is in niddah.
During the times of the Beit HaMikdash the husband would not sit in her chair while she was in niddah or where she lay etc. etc. if he planned on going to mikveh.
BTW, does your husband make sure that you get the first choice of food? Because that is halacha.
MBV, do you have a source for a wife not being allowed to sit in her husband's chair? (Not nidda-related, but kavod related. Even nidda related makes no sense to me as it's more meikil for a woman to be on her husband's bed than vice versa.)
Last edited by Hashem_Yaazor on Wed, Aug 03 2011, 12:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
I totally agree with saw.
It's all nice and well when you're describing the perfect man, who will always do what's best for everyone and treats his wife as a queen.
How many men like that exist? What about all the men who abuse power, who treat treat their wives as one would their cleaning lady, or worse. This whole "halachic relationship between husband and wife" that is being described only works within the ideal relationship. That's not reality.
The fact that the perfect husband doesnt abuse his power doesnt take away from the fact that he can if he wants to. And lets face it, there are enough men out there that want to.
As for the husbands seat, my dh doesnt have one either. We sit wherever most practical for both of us to help the kids.
This. This whole 'head of the household' is just shallow lip service if we only mean 'head' when the man is a perfect mensch. How many households does that encompass? 5%? Let's face it, most men are far, far from perfect, (as are most women), and it's so easy for a man to abuse such power. And when a man abuses such power, it leads to resentment and frustration for the woman - not a recipe for a good marriage. Maybe 50 or 100 yrs ago women felt less resentment because they were too busy feeling grateful they had financial and physical protection. But society has changed, and as women's ability to get by on their own has increased, so has their intolerance for such resentment.
It's a HUGE leap to make between someone being perfect and someone abusing power.
People can be far from perfect but still be mentchlich and respectful without abusing their role in the home.
Sorry, not a huge leap at all. Most people, male or female, if given the last word at home would use it when they felt really strongly about something. It's not 'abuse of power', it's just natural. Let's say the dh feels really really strongly that the kids should be in school X, and that the family should live in city Y, and that they should have a television in the house, and the wife feels really really strongly just the opposite. So in most homes I know, the family would compromise on school Z, or the dh would get to make one decision, the wife another. But if the dh was annointed as the guy with the Final Say? He would likely decide his way on everything he felt very strongly about. OK, he'd let the wife choose the couch colour and the annual trip so she'd feel better. But he'd choose all the really important stuff, because he obviously and naturally thinks that that's best for the family - so why give in when the family's good is at stake? Just natural, any normal guy would act that way. And most women would feel resentful.
A wife can choose to keep her money if she works, but then she can't ask her husband to support her. Sometimes it is worth it. It was common in Middle Ages Egypt, I remember finding this interesting info while researching Judeo Arabic names on ketubot.
Sometimes also not inheriting and being supported to marriage or forever by your sons/brothers is much more worth it than inheriting a small thing... as they will have to support you BEFORE they support themselves, using as much money as needed to maintain your lifestyle (don't agree with this learning, take it with dh's rabbanim!)
Quote:
is why any responsible mother will make sure that her daughters have a "knipple" when they get married. Money of their own, nichsei tzon barzel, that doesn't go into marriage and that the husband won't even know about.
Woah, I'm sorry but while I'm all for giving what you can to your children, it's not really a parent's duty to do so, and I am against hiding money from your spouse. If you mistrust the person, by all means don't get married!
Quote:
I do care how the Torah views marriage, and that's what I strive for.
Me too. But BH I am not obligated to some things I read here.
I totally agree with saw.
It's all nice and well when you're describing the perfect man, who will always do what's best for everyone and treats his wife as a queen.
How many men like that exist? What about all the men who abuse power, who treat treat their wives as one would their cleaning lady, or worse. This whole "halachic relationship between husband and wife" that is being described only works within the ideal relationship. That's not reality.
The fact that the perfect husband doesnt abuse his power doesnt take away from the fact that he can if he wants to. And lets face it, there are enough men out there that want to.
As for the husbands seat, my dh doesnt have one either. We sit wherever most practical for both of us to help the kids.
This. This whole 'head of the household' is just shallow lip service if we only mean 'head' when the man is a perfect mensch. How many households does that encompass? 5%? Let's face it, most men are far, far from perfect, (as are most women), and it's so easy for a man to abuse such power. And when a man abuses such power, it leads to resentment and frustration for the woman - not a recipe for a good marriage. Maybe 50 or 100 yrs ago women felt less resentment because they were too busy feeling grateful they had financial and physical protection. But society has changed, and as women's ability to get by on their own has increased, so has their intolerance for such resentment.
It's a HUGE leap to make between someone being perfect and someone abusing power.
People can be far from perfect but still be mentchlich and respectful without abusing their role in the home.
Sorry, not a huge leap at all. Most people, male or female, if given the last word at home would use it when they felt really strongly about something. It's not 'abuse of power', it's just natural. Let's say the dh feels really really strongly that the kids should be in school X, and that the family should live in city Y, and that they should have a television in the house, and the wife feels really really strongly just the opposite. So in most homes I know, the family would compromise on school Z, or the dh would get to make one decision, the wife another. But if the dh was annointed as the guy with the Final Say? He would likely decide his way on everything he felt very strongly about. OK, he'd let the wife choose the couch colour and the annual trip so she'd feel better. But he'd choose all the really important stuff, because he obviously and naturally thinks that that's best for the family - so why give in when the family's good is at stake? Just natural, any normal guy would act that way. And most women would feel resentful.
I completely disagree.
That sounds very, very extreme. An unhealthy marriage. And not because of the model of the husband being the head of the household, but because of the way the partners are (not) working on coming to agreement. The final say is used for when there can't be compromise...but both should be near the same page.
I let my husband have the final say on many matters and that would NEVER be anything remotely similar to what would happen in my home. And no, my husband is not perfect. He's a normal human being, like I hope everyone's husbands are, but he gives in and I give in, but ultimately some things are his decision and he doesn't abuse that. Proper communication in a healthy marriage would prevent abuse like that. Calling it normal is an extremely sad perspective. I don't see it as a natural reaction to being the king in the home. A man who is respected feels secure and doesn't need to overly assert his authority beyond normal bounds.
I let my husband have the final say on many matters and that would NEVER be anything remotely similar to what would happen in my home. And no, my husband is not perfect. He's a normal human being, like I hope everyone's husbands are, but he gives in and I give in, but ultimately some things are his decision and he doesn't abuse that. Proper communication in a healthy marriage would prevent abuse like that. Calling it normal is an extremely sad perspective. I don't see it as a natural reaction to being the king in the home. A man who is respected feels secure and doesn't need to overly assert his authority beyond normal bounds.
Of course some things are ultimately decided by one partner or another for a variety of reasons.
But I don't feel an obligation to give in when I think something is wrong, misguided or I feel strongly the other way. Many men are RESPECTED, but don't FEEL that way. There in lies the problem. Respect is a two way street. There is no monarchy here. We are a team. And we have equal standing.
I let my husband have the final say on many matters and that would NEVER be anything remotely similar to what would happen in my home. And no, my husband is not perfect. He's a normal human being, like I hope everyone's husbands are, but he gives in and I give in, but ultimately some things are his decision and he doesn't abuse that. Proper communication in a healthy marriage would prevent abuse like that. Calling it normal is an extremely sad perspective. I don't see it as a natural reaction to being the king in the home. A man who is respected feels secure and doesn't need to overly assert his authority beyond normal bounds.
Of course some things are ultimately decided by one partner or another for a variety of reasons.
But I don't feel an obligation to give in when I think something is wrong, misguided or I feel strongly the other way. Many men are RESPECTED, but don't FEEL that way. There in lies the problem. Respect is a two way street. There is no monarchy here. We are a team. And we have equal standing.
Who said there is any obligation to give in when something is wrong?
Choosing between 2 schools, for example, doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, but that they're both valid options -- you can defer to him if they're both valid.
When something is as serious as making the wrong choice for a major decision, it's a whole different ballgame.
I let my husband have the final say on many matters and that would NEVER be anything remotely similar to what would happen in my home. And no, my husband is not perfect. He's a normal human being, like I hope everyone's husbands are, but he gives in and I give in, but ultimately some things are his decision and he doesn't abuse that. Proper communication in a healthy marriage would prevent abuse like that. Calling it normal is an extremely sad perspective. I don't see it as a natural reaction to being the king in the home. A man who is respected feels secure and doesn't need to overly assert his authority beyond normal bounds.
Of course some things are ultimately decided by one partner or another for a variety of reasons.
But I don't feel an obligation to give in when I think something is wrong, misguided or I feel strongly the other way. Many men are RESPECTED, but don't FEEL that way. There in lies the problem. Respect is a two way street. There is no monarchy here. We are a team. And we have equal standing.
Who said there is any obligation to give in when something is wrong?
Choosing between 2 schools, for example, doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, but that they're both valid options -- you can defer to him if they're both valid.
When something is as serious as making the wrong choice for a major decision, it's a whole different ballgame.
Yes, it' s a whole different ballgame. We're not talking about when a dh and a wife disagree on two almost identical options. We're talking about situations where each spouse thinks the other's decision is misguided, invalid, dangerous to the family. Who wins? These are the big ticket decisions, this is what we're talking about.
If it's a monarchy, then I stand by what I said before, most dhs will want to see their decision win out, since they obviously think the dw's decision is misguided. If both have equal say, then they will have to somehow compromise.
Also, while we have our areas of authority, we also give in if it's not a big deal.
The home setup is basically my domain -- I'm the one cooking in the kitchen, I'm setting it up the way I see fit. But when my husband comments on something he doesn't think is right and it's not a big deal for me to change, I'm happy to do so...and when that happens in a marriage, it makes it more likely (if both partners are healthy, well-balanced people) for the other to give in on minor issues in his domain.
2 recent examples:
1. I decided to put the spices in a drawer next to the stove so it will be accessible while I'm cooking without walking across the room. My husband doesn't see the point, but at the end of the day, I'm the one cooking, I make the decision in the easiest manner for me.
2. My stove came with a storage drawer which I thought would be perfect to put in dishtowels. My husband thought it was a fire hazard even though he is very statistical and doesn't think it would really be much of an issue. It wasn't a big deal for me to move the dishtowels out and put them elsewhere. It doesn't make my life any harder. I respect his opinion, and even though setting up the kitchen is my responsibility, I can listen to him.
Just normal everyday occurrences...no abuse of power despite the fact that I don't mind listening to his say.
Yes, it' s a whole different ballgame. We're not talking about when a dh and a wife disagree on two almost identical options. We're talking about situations where each spouse thinks the other's decision is misguided, invalid, dangerous to the family. Who wins? These are the big ticket decisions, this is what we're talking about.
If it's a monarchy, then I stand by what I said before, most dhs will want to see their decision win out, since they obviously think the dw's decision is misguided. If both have equal say, then they will have to somehow compromise.
But the breakdown can be split evenly and there is no "monarchy". If my husband is in charge of the ruchniyus, that means he'll have the final say with guidance if I didn't trust his judgement (which it sounds like a wife wouldn't in such drastic cases). If I'm in charge of gashmiyus, I'd have the final say on which home to live in...
When it comes to major life decisions as what city to live, there are aspects of both sides where both parties by definition of their responsibilities will have a say -- the aspects of how money is spent, what the Jewish atmosphere is like, if it's liveable for the mother in the home to be able to live life practically....that's all a mixed bag.
Very few major discussions lie solely with one party.
Also, while we have our areas of authority, we also give in if it's not a big deal.
The home setup is basically my domain -- I'm the one cooking in the kitchen, I'm setting it up the way I see fit. But when my husband comments on something he doesn't think is right and it's not a big deal for me to change, I'm happy to do so...and when that happens in a marriage, it makes it more likely (if both partners are healthy, well-balanced people) for the other to give in on minor issues in his domain.
2 recent examples:
1. I decided to put the spices in a drawer next to the stove so it will be accessible while I'm cooking without walking across the room. My husband doesn't see the point, but at the end of the day, I'm the one cooking, I make the decision in the easiest manner for me.
2. My stove came with a storage drawer which I thought would be perfect to put in dishtowels. My husband thought it was a fire hazard even though he is very statistical and doesn't think it would really be much of an issue. It wasn't a big deal for me to move the dishtowels out and put them elsewhere. It doesn't make my life any harder. I respect his opinion, and even though setting up the kitchen is my responsibility, I can listen to him.
Just normal everyday occurrences...no abuse of power despite the fact that I don't mind listening to his say.
Sorry, those are not serious examples. Of course in any marriage you have those daily compromises. Bottom line, that's not important stuff. In fact, in many homes where the husband is the Head he probably wouldn't even deign to examine such minutae (I mean, where the kitchen towels are stored is really not the stuff I'm talking about).
But in any case, your example illustrates exactly what goes on in most normal non-hierarchal marriages. One time he decides, one time you - depends who cares more, who has a better case, etc.
Yes, it' s a whole different ballgame. We're not talking about when a dh and a wife disagree on two almost identical options. We're talking about situations where each spouse thinks the other's decision is misguided, invalid, dangerous to the family. Who wins? These are the big ticket decisions, this is what we're talking about.
If it's a monarchy, then I stand by what I said before, most dhs will want to see their decision win out, since they obviously think the dw's decision is misguided. If both have equal say, then they will have to somehow compromise.
But the breakdown can be split evenly and there is no "monarchy". If my husband is in charge of the ruchniyus, that means he'll have the final say with guidance if I didn't trust his judgement (which it sounds like a wife wouldn't in such drastic cases). If I'm in charge of gashmiyus, I'd have the final say on which home to live in...
When it comes to major life decisions as what city to live, there are aspects of both sides where both parties by definition of their responsibilities will have a say -- the aspects of how money is spent, what the Jewish atmosphere is like, if it's liveable for the mother in the home to be able to live life practically....that's all a mixed bag.
Very few major discussions lie solely with one party.
Again, you are in essence deconstructing the whole husband is Head if you are then clarifying that he is only Head in certain areas, and only sometimes, and if the wife's domain is involved then she gets to decide....so he's not really Head.
Of course I don't agree with the whole ruchniyot/gashmiyut split, but that's another issue. And in any case, almost every decision is a mix of ruchniyot and gashmiyut, so it's never clear cut anyway.
Yes, it' s a whole different ballgame. We're not talking about when a dh and a wife disagree on two almost identical options. We're talking about situations where each spouse thinks the other's decision is misguided, invalid, dangerous to the family. Who wins? These are the big ticket decisions, this is what we're talking about.
If it's a monarchy, then I stand by what I said before, most dhs will want to see their decision win out, since they obviously think the dw's decision is misguided. If both have equal say, then they will have to somehow compromise.
First of all, how many times does this come up in a normal marriage? Second, everyone here has been shouting about compromise. Saying there is always a solution. So, tell me, what do you do in that case? Personally, that would be the perfect case for a rav in my books. If you're talking misguided, invalid, dangerous, you don't defer.
I can think of one example where I deferred to my husband. We were considering buying a certain apartment. I didn't like it for various reasons, he thought it made sense. Given our circumstances at the time, I agreed to go for it even though I didn't like it. Financially, it made sense. There was no danger involved. I just didn't like the apartment. He didn't insist; he asked for my input and would not have done it if I said outright- NO. Still, I made the decision to go with his choice. Ultimately, G-d did not make it work out, and we ended up in an apartment we BOTH loved.
