I did not make you a woman, women are disqualified from testifying and judging.
- It is common to say that the blessing that you did not make me a woman is because of the number of mitzvot, and does not indicate inferiority. But why is a woman obligated to fewer mitzvot? Doesn't that indicate inferiority?
- Why is there often a comparison in halacha between a woman and a slave? (Laws that identify women with slaves)? Did Chazal see a woman as a type of slave?
- From a simple reading of the verses in Genesis, it seems that the main purpose of creation is for man. He was created first, and then God saw that he would not be able to manage alone, so He created a helper for him – the woman. Do you agree with this? If not, how do you explain the verses in Genesis? It is not good for man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him – which is the woman.
- Why did Hazal disqualify women from testifying and judging? I received many explanations, and none of them seemed real to me.
- Does the "custom of the place" have binding force in the laws of modesty? If all the women around me wear stockings, am I obligated to do so too? Thank you in advance.
1. I have no idea. Different roles and different personality structure. There is no need for this to indicate inferiority. Even a Cohen is obligated to more commandments than Israel.
2. There is a GAZH and it deals only with a few formal laws. Neither with rights nor with the woman being the property of her husband as a slave.
Regarding the obligation to perform the mitzvot as a wife, the slave learns from her, and not she from him. On the contrary, see section 1.
3. Indeed, that is what the simplicity seems like. But it is possible that these things also change with the generations. I don't know.
4. I don't know of a clear explanation. But I have written several times that there is room to consider training women witnesses based on their roles, education, and place in modern society.
5. In principle, yes. But with all due respect to customs, there is no need to sacrifice your life for something like this if it is very annoying.
I understand, thank you. Regarding 3: If this is God's intention in creation, it's hard to see how it could change, isn't it? This is what God intended when He created man and woman: that one would be fruitful and multiply and subdue, etc. and the other would help him. Suddenly He repented and decided that it was better for them to live in mutual equality?
Another thing - it sounds really unfair to me to create a person for the success of another person. But it seems that was God's intention?! How can one live with such a perception?
Perhaps the goal was for men to lead until the world becomes more kosher and women also enter the circle. There are quite a few things that change throughout history, including in God's policy (such as the cessation of miracles and His involvement in the world). Beyond that, it is difficult to learn anything clear from the Bible. Therefore, I do not attach much importance to such precisions. It also says an eye for an eye, and in Jewish law, poskim rule that money pays.
Therefore, we can live as usual according to our logic. At most, we can remain faithful to the Bible.
I don't care if it has changed or not. At a certain point in time in the past, He created a creature whose purpose was to serve man. He created him only because man was not good enough on his own. None of the commentators really agreed to accept the concept of an eye for an eye literally, but here, to my delight, most commentators are with me, it didn't bother them. Think of someone who had a particularly successful daughter but she was terribly forgetful, so he would decide to bring another child into the world so that he would remind the first child of everything she forgot, and he would educate this child to yearn to remind people of things. Do you think that is moral? And if not - to create a weak and generally stupid creature out of man, to give him a more submissive nature, so that he would help man, is that moral?!
I really don't see the problem in principle. I understand that today you are not ready to accept it, which is why I talked about change. But what is the problem in principle if everyone accepts these rules? Ask Haredi women and they will tell you the same today with full identification. The same problem can be raised with regard to animals (and no, I am not comparing). They were created at a level and with a consciousness that accepts that they serve humans and there is no problem with that. Just as we all serve God, there is no reason why there should be an internal division of roles among us. And is it that in the Air Force, when technicians are meant to serve the planes and pilots, is it an insult to their status and dignity? Everyone together serves a greater purpose, and this is the internal division between them. Whoever doesn't want to, shouldn't be a technician. And so it is with women, if they don't want to, then no. Today, many women don't want to be in this secondary role, and that's perfectly fine.
By the way, when you bring another child in this way, it doesn't mean that this is his entire role and status, but rather that it is a motivation to bring him in. From the moment he is brought into the world, he is a person for all intents and purposes.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer