Posted: Today at 10:35 am Post subject: re: The camp thread is making me ill. Seriously.
Friedsima wrote:
Quote:
Just read the stuff posted as I was writing my gigantic post here so a few more comments if I may:
HR if you believe G-d gave us the torah and is the guiding force behind halocho, then es, Man is Master of his wife, that's what the word ba'al is all about. There are issues in which he has the right to do many things and make many life altering decisions. You don't like that? Sorry it's Judaism. At least halochic judaism.
Just asked my husband. He disagrees with what YOU say is halacha.
I do follow my husband in terms of halacha generally unless I think he is wrong, in which case I say "Ask a Rav." Only once or twice has he been wrong...generally I trust what he says as he is a Rabbi.
But no, he is NOT my master, whatever the Hebrew word is. He has an obligation to take care of my needs, not boss me around.
OK, I kept on thinking of this topic as I made our Shabbat chicken soup. And I remembered the women of the Tanach, the imahot, and tried to recall if they 'deferred' to their husbands' opinions automatically. Quite the opposite, it seems; Rachel arranged for her husband-to-be to marry someone without asking his consent. Rivka arranged for her husband to give the bracha to the son SHE thought was most deserving, although Itzhak held the exact opposite opinion. In both cases, the imahot decided they knew what was best and didn't even bother trying to convince the man. They just went ahead and acted.
Not that I am advocating such an approach. Far from it. I think spouses should be above-aboard (in general, in most cases) and act together. I just think it's amusing that the greatest Jewish women certainly did not award their husbands automatic authority.
Yep...I'm mean if we are to learn from our foremothers they were pretty strong women...not given to blind obedience.
I went ahead and emailed my grandma about the respect issue. I asked her to answer about her OWN grandparents, and to ask my saba for the same.
"No, our grandmothers did not stand up when the husband entered the room and children did not stand for their father. We stood when our father blessed us by putting his hand on our heads, before the erev shabbes meal".
I like to think my grandparents' grandparents were not modern, feminist or egalitarian...
Don't they look dangerously subversive?
Posted: Today at 10:35 am Post subject: re: The camp thread is making me ill. Seriously.
Friedsima wrote:
Quote:
Just read the stuff posted as I was writing my gigantic post here so a few more comments if I may:
HR if you believe G-d gave us the torah and is the guiding force behind halocho, then es, Man is Master of his wife, that's what the word ba'al is all about. There are issues in which he has the right to do many things and make many life altering decisions. You don't like that? Sorry it's Judaism. At least halochic judaism.
Just asked my husband. He disagrees with what YOU say is halacha.
I do follow my husband in terms of halacha generally unless I think he is wrong, in which case I say "Ask a Rav." Only once or twice has he been wrong...generally I trust what he says as he is a Rabbi.
But no, he is NOT my master, whatever the Hebrew word is. He has an obligation to take care of my needs, not boss me around.
A last quick note before shabbos.
Ba'al isn't "master". "Adon" is master.
Big difference.
A husband does not own a wife like a slave, he is the head of the household.
HR if you don't believe me then check with your Rov. Is a wife required to serve her husband first or to provide for servants who will do it for her? Yes. Is a wife required to make her husbands bed EVEN if she has servants to do it for her? Yes. Does a man have ownership of all his wife's marital earnings? Yes. Does she have to go according to him vis a vis halocho unless it is intimate stuff that she does like her mother taught her? Yes.
I would like you to find a rov who says "no" to any of the above points, These are mefeirush gemoros and appear in all our later halochic sources as well.
Does any of this mean that if a man says to his wife that he is mochel all of this and does not require any of it from her and she can do as she wants it holds? Yes that holds too, but the power is given to the husband in judaism to either be mochel or not be mochel HIS rights.
Women have rights too, many many rights, but that's not what we are discussing now.
Maybe ask your Rov what being "head of the household" means halochically and see what he says. See if he says that it is customary not to let children sit in a father's chair without permission and that many hold that a wife shouldn't either. See if he says that a marriage is a kinyan and that a wife is "bought" in a sense (not like buying in the shuk but of what buying means when you make a kinyan).
Which is why a man talks at a wedding but a woman is silent unless they both agree that she says something too but what she says isn't halochic. And his giving the ring is halochic and her giving him a ring is NOT.
A last quick note before shabbos.
Ba'al isn't "master". "Adon" is master.
Big difference.
A husband does not own a wife like a slave, he is the head of the household.
HR if you don't believe me then check with your Rov. Is a wife required to serve her husband first or to provide for servants who will do it for her? Yes. Is a wife required to make her husbands bed EVEN if she has servants to do it for her? Yes. Does a man have ownership of all his wife's marital earnings? Yes. Does she have to go according to him vis a vis halocho unless it is intimate stuff that she does like her mother taught her? Yes.
I would like you to find a rov who says "no" to any of the above points, These are mefeirush gemoros and appear in all our later halochic sources as well.
Does any of this mean that if a man says to his wife that he is mochel all of this and does not require any of it from her and she can do as she wants it holds? Yes that holds too, but the power is given to the husband in judaism to either be mochel or not be mochel HIS rights.
Women have rights too, many many rights, but that's not what we are discussing now.
Maybe ask your Rov what being "head of the household" means halochically and see what he says. See if he says that it is customary not to let children sit in a father's chair without permission and that many hold that a wife shouldn't either. See if he says that a marriage is a kinyan and that a wife is "bought" in a sense (not like buying in the shuk but of what buying means when you make a kinyan).
Which is why a man talks at a wedding but a woman is silent unless they both agree that she says something too but what she says isn't halochic. And his giving the ring is halochic and her giving him a ring is NOT.
Etc.
Ask your rov. See what he says.
Actually a woman gets first choice in food and my husband says no to both...he does have smicha I'll remind you. Anyway, look to Chana and her husband - he served the food. The Rabbi's didn't want women to do nothing all day because idleness was the way to deviltry. Yes a woman is obligated to follow the husband's traditions, but I don't think he can decide now we are doing this. She agrees, in effect, to what his traditions are BEFORE the marriage.
My husband is the one who learned that a woman isn't BOUGHT but he is acquiring obligations to her and the holiness of being married. She is not property.
Which is why I said she is not a slave but that the marriage is a kinyan.
It is NOT darko shel olam for a husband to serve his wife if she is not ill or pregnant or special circumstances. Therefore it is customary that one acts according to "darko shel olam".
When I said a woman giving a man a ring under the chuppah is not halochic, that means that it is not part of the halochic marriage ceremony. The halochic marriage ceremony is one of kinyan which means that before two kosher wittnesses the husband give the wife a kinyan, in this case a ring although it can also be a coin or a certain worth or anything else. During the time of Shimon Ben Shetach an additional factor was added, the kesuba which had not existed beforehand. Everything else we do today is an addition to the halochic basis. You don't need a rov, you don't need a minyan, you dont need badeken, you don't need wine and you don't need brochos. You don't need the chuppah even, and the only question is whether the marriage is considered a valid kinyan without consummation or yihud.
As for a woman giving a man a ring, to paraphrase what R. Schechter said about a monkey making havdolo (for those of you who don't know, google it, it's famous), a woman can also give her husband a monkey under the chuppah if they want, and it's not forbidden but it's also not halochic. There is not allowed to be any kind of other form of kinyan or ring or anything else as an integral part of the service. Which is why in an orthodox service and even the most modern orthodox one, the rov has to stop the proceedings, and say straight out that this is not part of the official marriage ceremony but "as a token of her love the bride will present the groom with a ring" or/and say some words. But there has to be a clearcut recess in the halochic part of the ceremony (between harei at and reading the kesuba which is all one section) for this to take place then.
Which is why so many orthodox brides give their groom the ring in the yihud room. I didn't want my husband to wear a ring because in my world orthodox men do not wear rings. but his father wears one and so he wanted to wear one against my protests (again, an example of the HOH where I deferred). But it was obvious that it would not be done at the ceremony under any circumstances and when we went into the yihud room I gave it to him there and put it on his finger. In private. Because of his wishes.
Which reminds me totally off topic. I bet we were the only couple in history who had to physically schlep our aidem away from shmoozing with their friends after the huppa to remind them to stand outside the yihud room (which no one danced us to in those days but we just started walking there after everyone finished hugging and kissing all the members of their own gender).
Back to topic. Baal Ga'ava, ba'al mum and ba'al everything else means the bearer of, not the owner of.
Which is why I said she is not a slave but that the marriage is a kinyan.
It is NOT darko shel olam for a husband to serve his wife if she is not ill or pregnant or special circumstances. Therefore it is customary that one acts according to "darko shel olam".
I don't understand how all this connects to the man being The Head or the boss or the Final Word. All the women I know also serve their kids before they serve themselves - does this mean the kids are higher up on the hierarchy?
(Besides which many many men today do serve their wives; I know many men who love to cook, esp for Shabbat, and do the bulk of the cooking, at which point it's more natural for them to serve it. Been to many houses where it's the man that serves, so I would say 'darko shel olam' is perhaps in transition. Just like perhaps it's not or was not 'darko shel olam' for a women to be an equal or primary breadwinner once upon a time, but now it happens a lot. Anyhow, this is all just a footnote).
Same with making her husband's bed - perhaps it is written that women are obligated to do that. So what? That doesn't mean their husband is Head. I don't see any connection. Men are obligated to do many things for their wives, it's give and take.
I will add that I cannot defend the bit about men having ownership of their wives' earnings. I don't know how that works halachically. I will just say that I do take issue with that, and we definitely do not put it in practice. Or rather, we do, but I claim ownership of my dh's earnings too, it's all pooled together for mutual decisions.
Which is why I said she is not a slave but that the marriage is a kinyan.
It is NOT darko shel olam for a husband to serve his wife if she is not ill or pregnant or special circumstances. Therefore it is customary that one acts according to "darko shel olam".
I don't understand how all this connects to the man being The Head or the boss or the Final Word. All the women I know also serve their kids before they serve themselves - does this mean the kids are higher up on the hierarchy?
(Besides which many many men today do serve their wives; I know many men who love to cook, esp for Shabbat, and do the bulk of the cooking, at which point it's more natural for them to serve it. Been to many houses where it's the man that serves, so I would say 'darko shel olam' is perhaps in transition. Just like perhaps it's not or was not 'darko shel olam' for a women to be an equal or primary breadwinner once upon a time, but now it happens a lot. Anyhow, this is all just a footnote).
Same with making her husband's bed - perhaps it is written that women are obligated to do that. So what? That doesn't mean their husband is Head. I don't see any connection. Men are obligated to do many things for their wives, it's give and take.
Wow, I was gone for about a week and the topic of this thread has changed a LOT
I just wanted to say that I agree with you table.
Most of us are married to mortal men who do not possess any more nevuah than we do.
Maybe not more nevua, but more clearheaded da'as Torah to see what is ultimately the best spiritual decision for our families.
I haven't followed exactly who said what, but I maybe we have a connection here between those whose husbands are serious about learning every day and their wives seeing them as someone worth deferring to for important decisions. I don't know if the correlation is 100%, but it seems pretty high on this thread - those who think Torah learning for men is optional/ a nice thing if you can/ a luxury/ a good idea if there are no dishes in the sink, also don't see their husbands as being any wiser than them.
I truly believe my husband can make a better decision based on Torah when it comes to choosing which school to send a child, where to live, how to spend our money/time (though we definitely discuss important decisions and allow input from my bina yeseira too ). And he, in turn, will defer to our rov when we need further input from da'as Torah.
Not always do men have the clearheaded Daat Torah more than the woman. I also know that there are households, frum ones, where the woman definitely is the better one to make the spiritual decisions.
And a husband being wiser than the wife is not the same as the husband getting the last word or the one to always make the final decision about everything. To me there is no correlation.
There are many many many women out there that do NOT believe that their husband's can make a better decision on things such as school, where to live, how to spend money etc. but rather that they (the wife) is an equal partner in deciding those things.
Also, as we have said before, many of us out here on the imamother virtual community would never even dream of asking or deferring to a rav for those questions. So, its different strokes for different folks.
shabbatiscoming, I just posted to tell you that " I told you so"! enjoy catching up!
maybe tommorow I can settle in for a good long read
I am all caught up. That is what I was doing for the last hour or so
It was not as interesting until the end (when I posted something)
Enjoy catching up
Who wants me to change the name of this thread? It's really nothing to do with the title anymore.
I could split it but then it would be way behind the longest thread game.
that could be funny, you could put in one word that sums up the different topics with a 'etc' at the end. sort of like 'camp,money, priorities....etc' I havent read the thread in a long time, so I dont know what to suggest
but you would need the permission of the op
and it would need to be something that posters looking for this thread would know where to look for it
When I said a woman giving a man a ring under the chuppah is not halochic, that means that it is not part of the halochic marriage ceremony. The halochic marriage ceremony is one of kinyan which means that before two kosher wittnesses the husband give the wife a kinyan, in this case a ring although it can also be a coin or a certain worth or anything else. During the time of Shimon Ben Shetach an additional factor was added, the kesuba which had not existed beforehand. Everything else we do today is an addition to the halochic basis. You don't need a rov, you don't need a minyan, you dont need badeken, you don't need wine and you don't need brochos. You don't need the chuppah even, and the only question is whether the marriage is considered a valid kinyan without consummation or yihud.
As for a woman giving a man a ring, to paraphrase what R. Schechter said about a monkey making havdolo (for those of you who don't know, google it, it's famous), a woman can also give her husband a monkey under the chuppah if they want, and it's not forbidden but it's also not halochic. There is not allowed to be any kind of other form of kinyan or ring or anything else as an integral part of the service. Which is why in an orthodox service and even the most modern orthodox one, the rov has to stop the proceedings, and say straight out that this is not part of the official marriage ceremony but "as a token of her love the bride will present the groom with a ring" or/and say some words. But there has to be a clearcut recess in the halochic part of the ceremony (between harei at and reading the kesuba which is all one section) for this to take place then.
Which is why so many orthodox brides give their groom the ring in the yihud room. I didn't want my husband to wear a ring because in my world orthodox men do not wear rings. but his father wears one and so he wanted to wear one against my protests (again, an example of the HOH where I deferred). But it was obvious that it would not be done at the ceremony under any circumstances and when we went into the yihud room I gave it to him there and put it on his finger. In private. Because of his wishes.
.
FS this is wrong. It IS a halachic problem if a woman gives a man a ring under the chupah and even in the yichud room. Obviously not every Rabbi paskens the same way, but we discussed it with our Rabbi before marriage to figure out when I could give DH his ring. We were told under the chupah or in the yichud room would cause problems with the halachic status of our marriage since it wouldn't be a "kinyan" of DH's.
I told my husband about the turn in this thread and he said "Wait! I get to make decisions? Tell them to make me a list of where I can assert my authority." LOL
.
