On Experience, Internalization, and Study (Column 452)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
A few days ago I saw a charming snippet on Facebook that amusingly reverses roles between men and women:
| Meanwhile, in a parallel world.
Into the Great Synagogue “Ohel Leah” entered the city’s rebbetzin, the brilliant Rebbetzin Penina HaKohen, her face aglow with the light of Torah and with ritcha d’kedusha (holy fervor). She came in, thoughtfully twirled the lace-top wig she wore, and banged hard on the shtender. “My teachers and rebbetzins!” she cried in a weeping voice to the audience of learned women who, with eager eyes, awaited her words. “Bitter and painful calamities are befalling us, and we must vigorously scrutinize our deeds—and mainly our husbands’ deeds—to find why this has come upon us. And it is clear as the sun that men’s standards of modesty are deteriorating, and that the new fashions prevalent among the men in our camp are what bring these harsh decrees upon us. These are things unknown in the days of our foremothers!!! Our modest forefathers would wear long galabiyas that blurred the lines of their bodies, and today the breach has opened and men, brazenly and in the manner of the gentiles, wear a garment called ‘p.’ (for reasons of modesty the rebbetzin did not utter the explicit word ‘pants,’ so as not to arouse improper thoughts) which accentuates what ought not be accentuated. I have heard there are men who cause the multitudes to sin, whose long pe’ot (sidelocks) flutter in the wind and draw the attention of righteous, eye-guarding women hurrying to their house of study. Curled pe’ot slicked with gel, in the fashion of the gentiles—who has heard such a thing? Has anyone granted a hechsher (approval) to a payah (sidelock) that extends beyond the jawline? In recent years a new and shocking fashion has also spread among the Hasidic public: they don very tall shtreimels, growing higher year by year—truly “the sons of Zion have grown haughty.” These shtreimels have tips they call in men’s parlance “spikes,” and I have heard that some of these shtreimels are adorned with various hues and are not of a single dark color that does not catch the eye. And are the Lithuanian men any better? It is unthinkable that a kosher, modest man would wear a suit in the daring color “blue,” which may draw women’s attention and lead them to improper thoughts!!! And the new decree that has spread in recent years—men driving? Who ever heard of such a thing in the days of our foremothers—that modest, pious men, whose entire honor is inward, should drive? And where do they even have to go, I do not understand? Indeed, at times of urgent necessity one may permit travel to a distant place, and therefore we have prepared for men a special section in the back of the bus, for their urgent needs only. My father, a modest and upright man, a husband to a learned woman, never dreamed of having his own private car. He would sit in the back of his home and went out only for urgent needs, so as not to cause others to stumble. Dear women, go home and tell your husbands that you do not permit them such behavior. After all, an upright man does his wife’s will. And may a blessing come upon you.” With that the rebbetzin concluded her stirring words of encouragement, and the learned women in the beit midrash opened Tractate Men and returned to their studies. |
I very, very much enjoyed this piece, and then I heard that it’s a genre that has existed for years, mainly by Sharon Majewski, nicknamed “Rebbetzin Pashmina,” who has posted several pieces of this sort on her Facebook page. See for example this clip.
The Meaning of Immediate Experience
What do I find in such pieces? Let me put it gently: we’ve seen wittier ones. It wouldn’t pass as a Purim rabbi’s dvar Torah in a self-respecting yeshiva. And yet there was something very powerful in it for me.
The content, of course, was no novelty to me. I have always loathed the empty talk of rabbis (men, naturally), usually not the sharpest pencils in the case, who tell our modest women—in that despicable genre called “women’s classes”—that their modesty brings us to eternal life, that the length of their sleeves and thickness of their stockings hasten the Messiah, that their pots and cauldrons are the vestments of the High Priest, that their self-sacrifice in keeping the children beside the apron so that the husband can pray and study is greater than saving lives, and that in general their exalted level is higher than any Nasi of the Sanhedrin who is also the High Priest—especially if they are illiterate and thus do not stumble in Torah study, Heaven forfend, etc., etc. And of course, it’s important to stress the well-known fact that halakha elevates the status of women far above that of men. Their spiritual level is immense and lofty, extra understanding has been planted in them, “all glorious is the king’s daughter within,” and he honors her more than himself. In short, halakha’s attitude toward women is more enlightened and wondrous than anything you will find in any other society. There is no limit to the slogans and demagogic, peremptory declarations devoid of substance. I always thought that if I were in the place of our modest women, I would explode.
But until now, that was only in my intellect. It was understanding, not experience. I understood that this drivel comes from demagogues trying to keep women in their wretched state (in the kitchen and at the sewing machine) and fill them with a soothing, silencing sense of satisfaction, thereby removing from their (hollow) heads dangerous ideas of self-realization or intellectual and spiritual advancement, Heaven forfend. In these pieces I experienced, for the first time, a situation in which such a text lands on me, concerns me, and is directed at me as the listener. Suddenly I immediately grasped the feeling that the speaker with the beard and the frock coat—and in this case, with the lace-top wig (what is that, for heaven’s sake?)—is brazenly doing his business on me from the high diving board, with utter and blatant contempt for my abilities and desires. Suddenly I understood how hard it is for the listener—male or female—to think and be persuaded in such a situation, to believe it’s simply raining (though many modest women manage it. Greater than the High Priest, did I already say?). I realized that women, like me, are made of the same stuff and are offended by the same kind of ridiculous and insulting treatment. Until now I “knew” that if I were in their place I would explode. But now I understood that this is not hypothetical; it really happens to them (I don’t need to be in their place). They—or at least some of them, those who have not yet lost their human image despite the efforts to strip it from them—indeed do explode, just as would happen to me, and with complete justification. The matter moved from a state of “know this day” to “take it to your heart,” from intellect to experience.
At first I simply chuckled at the lines, and that was it. But then I realized how refreshing and instructive this perspective is—and, for me, quite new. It was a very powerful experience for me. I managed to feel the sensations that until now I had only understood intellectually. The matter reminded me of Mary’s Room, a thought experiment already mentioned here a few times. It teaches that one can know the whole of optics in all its branches, but if one has lived one’s entire life in a black-and-white room, then despite all that knowledge one still has no idea what color even is. Encountering red or green is a wholly new experience even for a world-class expert in optics upon leaving the room, for it brings experiential content to the comprehensive yet empty intellectual understanding he had until then.
I’ll note that I last mentioned Mary’s Room in a similar context, in column 446. There, too, I argued that one who has not experienced the feminine relationship to makeup cannot issue halakhic rulings on that subject. I broadened it there to any decisor required to rule on a question whose circumstances he does not know by direct (rather than merely intellectual) experience. I claimed that in questions where experience is necessary for decision (though this is probably a small minority of them), and when the gap between worlds is wide enough, such a decisor cannot and may not rule. That is exactly the effect I am talking about here. I have never experienced what a woman experiences when men talk over her head and, with deadly seriousness, employ ridiculous slogans that describe her to herself—without her even having a mouth to tell them to do us all a favor, jump off the diving board, and drown themselves.
The woman is the subject of these demagogues—some mute object discussed over her head as if she were a pet cat. These prophetic fools speak in learned tones as if they were omniscient, and explain to me, the simpleton, what God will do to me and what reward I will receive for the thickness of my stockings and the quality of my cooking (so long as I keep cooking and stay silent, of course), as if any of them has the faintest idea what he’s talking about. Needless to say, the stupidity of the speakers and of their words only sharpens and magnifies the sense of insult. Suddenly I understood the frustration that leads women to protests, to stances, to statements, and to extreme steps against religious conservatism. Many times I had (and still have) criticism of their positions, but now I understand that it comes from great and justified frustration. Fools have plowed across my back, and I am to keep silent, swallow, digest, and obey.
A Puzzling Question
In a conversation about this, Haya Ta Deutsch shot me a surprising question directly to my face in response to what I said:
Haven’t you just defined the very role and power of art, literature, legend, and midrash? Isn’t what you’ve written here a kind of ‘learning’?
She refers to a position I have expressed more than once regarding learning aggadah and midrash. I claimed there is no “learning” there, among other things because no new conclusions or insights are inferred. And here I did not learn something new; I only experienced something I already understood. And yet what I am describing is a significant and important lesson that I learned from it. Is that not learning?
She also tied this to other statements of mine:
I’ve heard/read you several times talk about the inability to rule for a person without understanding where he is, what his feelings truly are. You spoke about responsa from the Holocaust: that one who wasn’t there cannot rule. Seemingly, the role of art, etc., is to do exactly that. It reminds me of the new insight I had after seeing Gur Heller’s film “Layla” (“Night”), when all at once I understood the Palestinian situation in a wholly different and much deeper way.
Indeed, I wrote about these matters in a paper, in the above column, and also in the trilogy. If, indeed, bridging the experiential gap is the role of aggadah and midrash, then seemingly such engagement is unequivocally Torah study.
This question prompted me to rethink my firm stance regarding the study of aggadah and midrash. Just as Mary, upon leaving her room, learned something new about colors, so too I suddenly understood differently things I already knew beforehand. Seemingly that is what aggadah and midrash are supposed to do: transfer knowledge from the mind to immediate experience. It is a different kind of knowing. Is that not Torah study—or study in general? After I argued in column 450 for the obligation to try to enter the other’s position, this seems like a good opportunity to apply those points to this very sugya.
Reminder: My Position on Studying Aggadah
My claim about learning aggadah has two tiers: it is not “learning,” and it is not “Torah.” It is not learning because we do not accumulate new insights, and our conclusions will always match the understandings with which we approached the text. It is not Torah because these insights are universal. Conclusions such as the duty to be humble, to behave morally, or various psychological insights are not unique to Torah. In fact, they are usually drawn from other sources (like our own experience), and only afterward do we find them in aggadic texts. Even if there is a novel article or class in aggadah, the novelty is never in the content or conclusions but in the method of interpretation (how the well-known conclusions were extracted from the text). Sometimes that can be a brilliant move, but the brilliance is only on the interpretive plane. In the “west” (i.e., in content and conclusions) there is nothing new.
In the terminology I have proposed in the past, there may be room to define such insights as Torah “in the person” (be-gavra) but not “in the object” (be-cheftza). But if midrash is Torah be-gavra, then so too, I argued, are Kant and other philosophers; likewise Crime and Punishment or other fine literature and poetry, etc. From all of these we learn various insights (almost all of them known in advance, of course, but nicely presented in the text, which at best helps us internalize and reinforce them).
Another Look at Studying Aggadah and Midrash
Haya’s remark truly led me to reconsider this position. I’ll start from the end: bottom line, I conclude that I accept the claim partially. At times, such engagement does constitute a kind of learning, for the transition from understanding to experience is indeed a form of insight and an added depth. But I still maintain that while it may be learning, the content thus learned is not Torah (be-cheftza). I will now explain briefly.
First, the lessons I derive in this way are matters of fact, not norms. What a woman feels and what is or isn’t important to her are factual questions, and as such they are not Torah. One could also conduct a survey of women and ascertain their opinions and feelings. This is done all the time in (superfluous) departments of gender studies and psychology. What has Torah to do with that?! I do not claim these questions are unimportant or unnecessary for halakhic ruling. Certainly they are, as I explained above. But there are many questions necessary for halakhic ruling, and not all of them can fall under the rubric of Torah. For example, one must know various areas of mathematics to calculate distances for graves and mixed species, and even the laws of mikva’ot. One must know physiology to rule on the laws of niddah, terefot, and life-saving on Shabbat. One must know psychology to understand the human soul, and so on. Does that mean that engagement with any of these fields is Torah study? Unlikely. At most these are instruments of a mitzvah (machshirei mitzvah) for the sake of halakhic ruling, but not every instrument for ruling is Torah study. To take an extreme example: eating breakfast and getting a good night’s sleep give me strength to study and rule on halakha—does that make them Torah study? In my view, no.
[In parentheses I’ll add that there is room to discuss whether factual inquiry conducted in a beit din (examining witnesses and clarifying reality) falls under Torah study. I tend to think not, and in my opinion that, too, is a mere instrument for a mitzvah. Yet within court proceedings there may be room to argue that the entire inquiry is conducted within the context of halakhic ruling, and therefore perhaps it is included in the learning itself. Likewise, an archaeological inquiry done to clarify a term in the Mishnah or the Talmud could perhaps be considered Torah study, though studying archaeology per se, as I understand it, is not Torah study.]
Second, this modern midrash certainly added an important dimension to my understanding of women’s experience, but most midrashim do not do this for me. At least for me, midrashim at best further internalize somewhat the well-known and obvious values or insights, but they do not add information, nor even understanding and internalization (experientially). In this sense, in my estimation the modern midrash I brought here is an exception. Note that this consideration (unlike others I present here) leads to the conclusion that in most midrashim there is not even learning here, let alone Torah.
And third, the insights that arise here are not unique to Torah. They are universal insights. This is certainly true of our case, which concerns a factual understanding of the nature and situation of women in the world. But it is also true of cases where some aggadah sharpens for me a moral insight. I have already explained several times that moral values are universal (there is no uniquely “Torah morality”), and therefore learning moral values is not Torah study. Think of a story that raises psychological insights (like Crime and Punishment) or moral-human insights (like Uncle Tom’s Cabin), and the like. How does “studying” such texts differ from studying the modern midrash about women’s situation? Could it not be written and studied by anyone, Jew or not? Were the circumstances of Black people in the U.S., who felt their white masters treated them as objects, as mere property devoid of feelings, thought, and dignity, essentially different from the lesson learned here about women (I am not comparing the situations themselves, of course)? In what way is it different? Only in the religious identity of the author, if at all. Why, then, should this text be Torah while Uncle Tom’s Cabin or The Help (the film and the book) are not?
One could of course claim that indeed all of these are Torah (as they do in secular batei midrash today, where sources of inspiration are by definition Torah—though for them this has no normative meaning). But if everything is Torah, we have emptied the definition of Torah of content (which is why, in my opinion, Torah is not actually studied in those batei midrash, even when they tackle the Ketzot—which usually they do not, and not without reason). I have explained in several places that perhaps all these (including Uncle Tom’s Cabin) can be seen as Torah be-gavra, but that is not Torah be-cheftza (unlike the Ketzot). Either way, it is no different from studying general literature or general philosophy.
Perhaps where aggadah sharpens for me the meaning of a law—that is, a normative instruction belonging to halakha itself—there is room to regard it as Torah. Matters said around halakha can certainly be considered a certain halakhic addition. But regarding lessons from other fields, I do not see how they can be considered Torah.
Source of Inspiration or Source of Authority
These three points are distilled into a fourth aspect that threads them all together. When we study midrash or aggadah, we are engaging a source of inspiration, not a source of authority. The conclusion begins and ends with me and what seems to me reasonable or moral. No one accepts things merely because they were stated or extracted from the aggadic text, unless he himself agrees with that conclusion (and usually already knew it beforehand). At most, he finds in it inspiration that resonates with ideas he himself had already thought, and, as we saw here, perhaps also internalizes their significance and transfers to him an experience he did not have directly. But of course this also happens in many other texts that by all accounts are not Torah, while at the same time it does not occur in many aggadic texts. Therefore, to regard such texts as Torah seems to me very implausible, even taking into account the novelty evoked in me by the experience as I described above. If I had not understood on my own (intellectually) the problem in the attitude toward women, this modern midrash that transfers the insight to the experiential plane would not have convinced me that it exists. At most it can awaken me to that insight and perhaps reveal to me that it exists, and of course also bring it to an experiential level within me. But a new insight that I do not find within myself—no midrash will cause me to accept it. From here we see that midrash is not a source of authority but, at most, a source of inspiration.
We must remember that each of us draws inspiration from different sources. It can be fine or not-so-fine literature; the flight of a bird; a utility pole or a solitary streetlight standing at the edge of the neighborhood; a passerby’s remark overheard by chance; cold weather; an image I saw; a poem I read; and more. All these raise in me various insights, some perhaps very important and sometimes even applicable to Torah and halakha—but they at most direct my attention to these insights; they do not teach them to me. Inspiration from such a source is not learning. Beyond that, as I have explained, these insights are also not unique to Torah but universal. All this reflects the fact that, for us, these sources do not constitute sources of authority. I am not obligated to accept the insight I drew from the bird or the utility pole. Therefore I claim that drawing inspiration from some source generally should not be regarded as learning; and even if it is learning (as in the case of Rebbetzin Pashmina), it is not Torah, for all the reasons I have described above. As I mentioned, secular batei midrash treat sources of inspiration as Torah and their engagement as Torah study—but they truly do not distinguish between midrashim and literature or poetry or any other text. I disagree with them on this, of course.
Conclusion
Returning to the modern midrashim—like the one we saw above, or those of Rebbetzin Pashmina—it seems right to say that I partially retract: this is indeed learning (unlike engagement with most midrashim), just as Mary’s exit from her black-and-white room taught her something. But I still maintain that what I learned in this way is not Torah.
A top lace wig is a wig whose upper part is entirely handmade. It looks more natural, more beautiful and more expensive.
It is not impossible that the preacher is also mocking us, women of our own sex, and the race to which we are subjected.
And if we are talking about literature, and if we are talking about empty demagogy, how is it possible without the king:
“R' Gronem spread his legs and stood in a posture that is submissive, and groaned a few groans, the kind that preachers are accustomed to groaning before a sermon, and closed his eyes, so that they would not be left wanting for respect. And he spread his legs again…
R' Gronem's breath became stronger and both of his eyes filled with a kind of drool, this drool that women mistake for tears. All the women began to cry and mourn their husbands, and every Mea Shearim was filled with weeping. Rabbi Gronam raised his voice and cried, Woe to us from the day of judgment, woe to us from the day of rebuke. A man walks in the marketplace and seems to be without sin, but I say that he is a sinner and a transgressor. How, then, a cart drawn by an ox and a donkey stood and a man smelled it and sneezed, and the animals were startled and moved, and it was found that he had transgressed the law of not plowing with an ox and a donkey together. A man stands in the synagogue and prays in public and answers Amen, it seems that here in a holy place he is cleansed of all sin, but I tell you that he is a sinner and a transgressor, who does not answer Amen with all his might…
At that moment, the entire public was shocked. Those who turn here, woe, those who turn here, woe. Those who sit in the study hall, woe, those who go up on their beds, woe. Rabbi Gronam knows that they seek to hear words of comfort, but their hearts are as bitter as wormwood, and they can only utter from their mouths words as bitter as wormwood…”
Sh”y Agnon, the day before yesterday
You should read more, it's long!
Despite the fascinating satire, are we completely ignoring the concept of “Don't put a stumbling block before the blind”? Is there indeed an absolute symmetry between the parable and the parable? (As well as the comparison between analysis and scholarship between the two sexes)
In addition, are you also willing to challenge your perception of spiritual experiences and feelings? Perhaps if you experience such, you will change your perception of religious faith (first of all, that there is a meaning to a religious experience, because it cannot be explained by reason and only those who have experienced it can say this…)
Can you translate it into Hebrew? Or tell me what language it's written in and I'll try Google Translate.
There is automatic language recognition (but I understood without it)
A language of people born with emotion. You won't feel it, you won't understand it.
I will try anyway. I asked two things.
A. In your opinion, is there no place for women's modesty, and for discussions about the attractive clothing they wear (lace tops, etc.), as a barrier to the commandment "You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind"? And is it not acceptable for men to conduct the discussion on the subject, since they are more skilled in learning.
B. You have often claimed that emotional religious experiences are meaningless to you as a value for religion. I asked about this, whether in light of your change in position regarding the emotional understanding of things, you would agree to examine this issue as well. Because in my opinion, a person who experiences an emotional-spiritual experience suddenly understands its enormous value and importance. And to what extent the emotional connection to the commandments is the very essence of their existence. As mentioned, it is impossible to explain why this is true until you feel it.
Before a blind man in a woman's dress, simply insane impudence, I have never heard of a prohibition on buying a nice house or driving a nice car so as not to offend the public before a blind man. This is a matter of moral nonsense.
Someone who is versed in halacha will not bother with this nonsense.
When writing prose, unlike poetry, it is appropriate to explain your intentions in words and not to build on the emotions that will arise in the reader. On this site, the questions, answers, and claims belong to the prose genre. This is regardless of the character and problematic tendencies of the autistic/Asperger's site owner, who does not understand what is being said to him unless it is explained to him.
To your questions:
A. Demands for modesty from women did not appear in the column, even with a magnifying glass (they appeared only as an expression of the attitude towards women as objects), and I am unable to discern the connection between them and what I wrote. And regarding the demand itself, you were answered correctly, and so on.
The person who should conduct the discussion is anyone who understands halakha and knows the soul of a woman well, be it a man or a woman. In fact, this is the person who should decide. Anyone can express an opinion. But even that is not what I have really dealt with here. The main question is the content and nature of the discussion (the attitude towards women as objects).
B. There is no connection between the experiences and emotions I spoke about in the past and an experiential insight into a specific claim (which is my topic here). Experiences in themselves have no religious and/or intellectual value, but a direct understanding of claims and their meaning does. Mary's experience of color as she leaves the room is not an emotion.
Anyone who understands the meaning of the commandments experientially misses the mark. He turns them into instrumentality. This is a good example of the bias of emotion.
From now on, is it correct to say (also in your opinion) that the literature of legends and poetry are "mitzvah instruments"? They are mitzvah instruments in the sense that their function and purpose is to expand the soul and consciousness, to refine subtleties and insights, when this refinement and refinement are useful for anything, including the performance of mitzvot. For example, Shakespeare's King Lear is useful for precision and deepening in honoring father and mother, as Rabbi Lichtenstein claims in his article "Torah with an Inheritance," and so on. (One is influenced by a modern parodic midrash, the other is influenced by an ancient midrash.) And what is the difference between a mitzvah instrument and the category of "Torah in Gebra"?
Of course. I never claimed otherwise. A midrash is like King Lear, Dostoevsky, and Uncle Tom's Cabin, or a good movie. That's exactly what I claimed.
I wonder if with a little creativity it is possible to turn this into a mitzvah in itself, of the general mitzvah type. Let's say, and you did what was right and good (how would you do that if you don't have a deep and rich human understanding?)
To live,
I read your book, The Rabbi's Wife, The Bishop's Wife, a very moving and well-written story. I have a few questions for you:
A. Will the book be translated into other languages such as English, French and Spanish?
B. At the end of the book, it describes how the hands meet despite the Corona laws. Apparently also despite the religious laws. As a religious reader, this evokes a bit of discomfort. I wanted to ask how you approached this? Is this what suits the characters and therefore this description should be included? Or does it not matter to you? I have no problem with the romance between them, but from your point of view as a writer, how do you understand what is right to describe and what is wrong to describe (how does it work in short)?
Thanks, but a. I don't think Rabbi Michi's website is the right place for this discussion. b. The characters in my book aren't necessarily touchy-feely and I try to portray them as they are in a believable way. Of course I have boundaries, but they don't necessarily cross them.
I have no other way to communicate with you so I took this opportunity. If it's not appropriate then thank you.
chayutad@gmail.com
As far as I'm concerned, it's not necessary to delete, it doesn't matter to me. At the discretion of the site owner. And in the meantime, thank you for the advertisement, and along the way, I'll add and answer the questioner that the book has already been translated into English and is on Amazon.
And by the way, the issue of the boundaries of modesty (and perhaps other areas) in the work of a religious artist is an interesting topic, and if a post is ever dedicated to it, I will probably have something to say about it.
It's not just a matter of modesty. It's also about respecting scholars, for example. I once wrote a piece about a scholar I knew and mentioned that he had sweat stains under his armpits. It was clear to me that this was part of his description that was essential to the story. Literary freedom is sometimes necessary, but what exactly is the melody is a question that intrigues me.
There are subtleties here, of course. Do you want to mock him? Are you writing about him (not as a scholar, but as a person) out of respect? The wicked are allowed to mock. Just making fun of people – is less appropriate for me.
It wasn't mockery. It was part of the story's contrast. I have no interest in mocking people either.
Moishe Balch, I apologize for the impudence. I am not a Neturi Karta person and I do not hold these positions, but in any case I am willing to discuss them seriously and not despise them like the ’liberals’ who dominate public discourse today. The data shows that infidelity and divorce are more common today in the general sector, so it is worthwhile to discuss seriously the entire question of the separation of the genders and not bury your head in the sand and compare it to buying an apartment and a car.
Rabbi Michi. You brought here a satirical post that, alongside its humorous aspect, also sided with its content and the criticism that arises from it, among other things, with regard to women's modesty and the fact that men deal with women's issues, etc. I emphasized this even though this is not the essence of the column, because these are interesting insights for the discussion that arose from it.
B. She herself, I argue that sometimes to discuss the importance of a certain emotion you just have to… feel it. Just as you did not understand the meaning of feeling and emotion in order to illustrate a certain insight. I want to say that it is difficult to discuss the value of an experience without experiencing it.
And by the way, in my opinion, a person with emotion would not react so cynically to a comment on his column. Just as you would not react that way to a participant in your class.
Where did the issue of separation between the genders come up? You brought up the issue of women's modesty in a context that is, in my opinion, absurd, like that of a blind man. In the halakhic definition, this is complete nonsense, and I brought you the contrast of "do not covet" to emphasize the absurdity of the context.
Separation is also part of the issue of modesty. If lack of modesty (including lack of separation) causes betrayal and prohibitions, then there is a “blind man” here, and of course we must add to this the daily sin of “not turning aside” and reflections, etc., etc.
You don’t have to be a great scholar to understand that the urge is much more effective in the case of women than in the case of buying a house, and this causes many more serious offenses. In any case, this “contradiction” does not answer my argument. Maybe there is no problem at all, is there a problem with causing jealousy and greed? They don’t answer a question that is more difficult than another. I didn’t understand how you see the absolute stupidity of the halakhic definition here.
Because the definitions of Plenni Awar speak of active sinning, as in Teri Ivri Danhara, without which it would not have been sinful
And for some of the former, it even spurs on the same side
The Shulchan Aruch gives an example of beating one's older son, which could cause the son to retaliate, and violate the commandment to honor father and mother. As in the case of an immodest girl who causes reflections (not even in a "madam" way) that could be considered an obstacle before the blind man. Even if you disagree, it is certainly a topic for discussion at the very least.
In the case of Purim Katan P.B.
To Joseph and Moshe, greetings,
It seems that both of you are partially right.
In the Bible (S.A. 7) it is explained that there is a difference between the usual place of being uncovered, even if the one who looks to enjoy passes by the ’You shall not turn’ – The woman is not responsible for what the man sins and intends to enjoy, and she is not obliged to cover.
On the other hand, in what is a way to be covered – a man is also forbidden to ‘see blindly’ without the intention of enjoying (as explained in the Bible in the name of the ‘P.M.3). It seems that in this (what is a way to cover it) there is ‘before a blind man’ By not covering, since it is almost impossible to avoid the forbidden “seeing” of others, and therefore, kosher Jewish women used to cover.
With regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Continuing the discussion of Rebbetzin Pashmina's films and the power of cinema and midrash, this film, created by Yaakov Friedland in 2000, 22 years ago, has just been uploaded to YouTube for free viewing. It reflects a historical point in time at the beginning of religious feminism in Israel. ‘Kollech’ was founded two years earlier. Nechama Leibowitz, quoted here by Rabbi Ariel, passed away only three years earlier, female doctors became professors, and so on and so forth. An incredibly sweet and touching film, and there is something in it to shake you if you are the type of person who is moved by films (or midrash). An object of a mitzvah. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdLZBtoP8Ow&t=729s
Mitzvah devices. Is a film a hefza?
Previously https://mikyab.net/posts/7229#comment-13469
I defined the learning channels in a response: 1. Sources of inspiration 2. Analysis 3. Internalization
I defined the reference as the best learning tool for the next learning. I then debated whether it was really part of the learning, and you almost convinced me that it wasn't
And I still stand by what I wrote. Here I raised one small point: Internalization, not in the sense of assimilation of direct understanding, is indeed learning (even if not Torah).
“Suddenly I realized how refreshing and instructive this point of view is, and in fact, very new to me. For me, it was a very powerful experience. I was able to feel the sensations that until now I had only understood intellectually”
It seems that this post discussed several issues in a somewhat misleading mix:
Issues of female modesty / Torah education for women / Midrash, Aggadah and literature versus Halacha.
Although I believe that Aggadah, Midrash and literature in general can be fascinating learning tools for understanding Torah, in this case I would prefer your previous approach and would actually endorse the sentence at the end of the post:
“What I learned in this way is not Torah” .
Because you may not have understood. You may have understood partially. You may have missed the deceptions and little lies hidden in Pashmina's sermon.
You have never been a woman, and you will never understand everything, even if you think you do. You will probably never fully understand what it is to use a woman's body manipulation against a man – what every woman understands, from her youth, from the day her female body is formed. (Except for a few righteous / autistic women who do not experience it and do not understand it).
These things were known and there was nothing new about them until today. Suddenly they became sacred cows that are forbidden to be talked about. So true, it is not politically correct to say this, and woe to the man who dares to talk about it, but as a woman, this hypocritical naivety has pretty much sickened me. Not every woman who reads Pashmina's sermon identifies with her. It is entertaining, but it omits many important issues and reinforces things that are not true.
Many women in our diverse, decent world use body manipulation through clothing of one kind or another. Not many men do it. Men have other manipulations, and in any case, even though I have never been a man, I suppose the equation is not symmetrical. The effect of a man's body manipulation on a woman is not the same as that of a woman on a man. And certainly not in its results from a halakhic perspective.
Women do need to be aware of the halakhic aspect of what they do intentionally or unintentionally. Women do need to learn something about it.
True, the mind does not tolerate disrespect for women's intelligence. Of course, any teaching for women should be at a level no less high and profound than that for men, and certainly lessons in the style of the preacher Rabbi Gronam and the kindergarten teacher Pashmina are out of bounds.
In one of the comments, the rabbi wrote: “Modesty demands from women did not come up in a column, even with a magnifying glass”. Well and good, of course, one should not make demands.
But why not offer in-depth halakhic teaching on matters of modesty? Maybe a series of posts that will once again bring some intelligent order to this jungle?
And with regard to insights from Midrash and Aggadah - maybe that's what R' Nachman was talking about when he distinguished between the melody of a kosher player and the melody of another player.
There's a lot of confusion here. You put things in my mouth that I didn't say or address. Who talked about using female manipulation? I definitely understand that, especially because these manipulations are directed at men. Where did I address that at all? Where did I write that it shouldn't be discussed? What does this have to do with the column?
You can explode from any infantile sermon, it doesn't matter if it's aimed at women or men. Since there are plenty of such, I didn't understand what the specific enlightenment was from Pnina the priest's speech.
If the enlightenment is about women's feelings about dealing with matters of modesty - I don't think you can learn anything about that from the speech.
As the feminist discourse dictates today, any talk about the manipulation of clothing is dismissed out of disgust. I assumed you were also turned off..
And since that's not the case, you can delete that comment and this one as well.
The problem is that sermons to women are usually infantile. But my argument was against the prevalent talk about women above their heads. That's all. Modesty was an example, of course, because it is the most prevalent topic in women's sermons. And you can definitely learn from this sermon what it feels like to be spoken to above your head.
Indeed, patronizing is repulsive. And when it comes along with infantility, it is even more repulsive.
In any case, if you ever decide to make a change, and give something of your own in the laws of modesty, I at least, would be very happy.
Today there is confusion, embarrassment and helplessness in the face of the genre: “My religiosity is not measured by my size”, “My prayer is more important than my cleavage”, “My wife is truly righteous, a doer of good deeds, who exactly cares if she walks around sleeveless in the Tel Aviv heat?” and ”Why do I need to cover my head at all and why in the synagogue”?
What is from the Torah and what is not. What is important and what is less important, what are the boundaries, how were they set..
How do you explain, how do you get into the heart and how do you appease the educated and intelligent mind.
In the Small Purim Prayer
To a Woman – Hello,
Apparently, the laws of modesty can be explained in two ways: Halacha and respectability.
Halacha – As if a woman is willing to observe all the rules of Shabbat and kashrut, even though they are inconvenient and not always understandable. Why would the power of the laws of modesty be diminished?
Respectable, and here it does not necessarily overlap with the halachic boundaries, but it comes close – You can do a simple ‘Buzgalo test’: Would a man who respects himself walk down the street in a ‘mini’, cleavage, tight pants, or with arms outstretched and sleeveless?
And in any case, the higher a person's status – this is expressed in more meticulous clothing. Even those who do not wear a hat in their daily lives will wear a hat as an expression of their position. Jews who are in full-time service as representatives of the King of Kings deserve to be adorned with an appropriate hat.
Best regards, Eliam Fishel Werkheimer
Dear Sh”el Eliam Fish”el,
These answers could have been satisfactory in better times. Not in this era.
Halacha – It has long been unclear in our regions what is and is not Halacha in matters of modesty. Who determined the knee line, or the elbow, and why specifically those, if that is what they determined? After all, the range is already so wide – Maybe black socks that are forbidden to be removed even on a separate beach with a male lifeguard, is this Halacha?
And if it is so fluid, then maybe mini (not extreme) in an environment where everyone is in mini anyway is okay?
Respectable – Specifically in the Holy Land, all female clothing is respectable as long as it has the chic and style appropriate to the situation. (Unlike in Europe and the US, where people dress modestly for work).
On the contrary, clothing with a stigma of “modesty” is less respectable and less appropriate. Girls run away from this stigma like fire and do everything so that even modest clothing will be fashionable and charming and will not “give away” them.
The postmodern representatives of the King of Kings do not think that clothing says anything about the nature of representation. Of course, they will not walk around naked, or be blatantly exposed, but as far as they are concerned, as long as they believe in it, do good deeds and live on a certain religious continuum – they represent it faithfully. Of course, one could say that this is no different from the way they observe other laws, but apparently due to the different feminine discourse today, clothing is a taboo that is very difficult to deal with. Any attempt to touch on it draws angry reactions from both women and young men who fiercely defend them.
In the name of Purim Katan P.B.
No, – Hello,
I see no reason to be afraid of ’angry reactions’ from someone or something unknown. We are allowed to think and say what Chazal taught us and what common sense requires. After all, we are not policemen to force anyone. But we cannot let them deter us from safely speaking the truth.
The ‘knee line’ or ‘elbow line’ was determined by Chazal when they said ‘a blow to a naked woman’. There is an interpretive dispute as to whether ‘a blow’ It is what we call the ‘shin,‘ meaning the bone below the knee, and according to this one must cover up to the ankles. But the rabbinic ruling as a method that the ’shin’ is what we call the ‘thigh’ and therefore it is sufficient from a legal perspective to cover up to the knee and elbow.
And as I mentioned the male ‘Buzgalo test’. Would a self-respecting man walk down the street in shorts or tight pants? Would a respectable man walk with cleavage or arms exposed? It is clear that fashion designers make sure that women's clothing is provocatively attractive, because in their minds the woman is an ‘object’ in a culture where women are respected – they dress her in a respectable manner. Why don't we learn from Europe and the US?
And in any case. The fact that there are ‘continuity religious’ teaches that despite everything. The young want to be connected to tradition. The more we show them a personal example of observing the grammar of Halacha willingly, joyfully and proudly – sooner or later we will see the young people rise up the line of continuity.
With greetings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”r
Dear Shchel,
I always like what you write, and I have often been helped by your words,
But this time it is not convincing. This Bozaglo test sounds puritanical, moralistic and archaic. Today we go as we please.. Of course, you can dress in different ways for a formal meeting, for a party, for a walk with the dog in the park..
Fashion designers do not necessarily treat women as objects, they design beautiful, fashionable, high-quality, comfortable and fun clothes for both women and men..
Clothing can be attractive, depending on the situation, and young people today do not interpret revealing clothing as provocative clothing.
In the US and Europe, of course, you can see everything, only at work there it is usually much more conservative than in Israel.
On February 15th 6,593,375,496 to the Big Bang
To Homo sapiens called ‘Woman’ – Greetings,
As a fossilized prehistoric cow, I have no problem being archaic. And I ask every day: ‘When will my actions reach the actions of my ancestors’.
I proudly hold a moral and purifying Torah that requires its subjects to purify their thoughts, and that was written with black fire on a white stone two thousand generations before the ‘Big Bang’, a Torah that engraved on its tablets: ‘Thou shalt not covet’, and recites twice a day ‘And ye shall not follow after your hearts and after your eyes’,
Therefore, the determiners of my taste and chic are the prophets, the Tannaim and the Amoraim, the sages of the generations, first and last, who found it appropriate for the students of the Sages, men and women, to dress in fine and respectable clothing that is not revealing or eye-popping, as described by Maimonides in chapter ’Mahaliklot Daiot, from whose words I quoted in my response ‘Hatseniyot– The measure of the scholars. This is Rabbi Moshe's chic 🙂
But even from what I see around me, I have not seen in our time any respectable man who makes sure that his clothing is beautiful, fashionable, fun, and comfortable, who goes to work or to a formal event in shorts or tight pants, and not with a neckline or with arms rolled up without sleeves. Men left these honors to women.
If the sages felt that it was honorable for the daughters of Israel not to feast their eyes on them, we too should follow their example.
With best wishes, Archaeo-Buzaglou Zaurus the Cretan
The source is in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin, Chapter 2, Halacha 4 (regarding the discussion of who goes first at the funeral): ‘And the men forbade at first, out of respect for the daughters of Israel, that they should not look at women’
With greetings, Abez”k
Haha, there's no one like you. I didn't mean that it didn't convince me. I'm completely with you.
But it's a bit difficult to speak in this language to someone who has trouble understanding, for example, what's not respectable ten centimeters above the knee…
In the s”d Purim Mokfim Katan P”b
No’ – Hello,
I have already mentioned that the issue of ’respectability’ should not overlap 100 percent with the boundaries set by the halakhah, and there can be gaps here or there.
A classic example of such a gap is the days of Purim, which began with a natural feeling of the Persian Jews who made the fourth day a feast and a joy and a good day and sending gifts to each other to express their joy at their miraculous salvation.
Mordechai and Esther came, as men of halakhah, and both added to and detracted from the creation of the natural feeling. On the one hand, the men of halakhah detracted from the ’good day’ and refused to establish a blanket prohibition of work on the days of Purim, but left this area where they had been accustomed’.
On the other hand, they added commandments beyond the ’natural feeling’. And they also obliged the Jews of the walled cities who did not feel threatened to celebrate the fifteenth day (as explained by the Ramban”). They also added the duty of caring for the poor, which was not included in the spontaneous awakening.
And so, in the explanation, it is necessary to build, first of all, the natural feeling that appropriate clothing is an honor for the wearer, when the ’Buzgalo test’ will make it clear that what no respectable man would wear as reasonable clothing – short or tight pants, ‘mini’, cleavage and exposed arms – is not honorable for a woman, not even a gentile.
On the natural height, when properly internalized – We can build the ‘floor B’, the boundaries of modesty that stem from Halacha. Here the demarcation line (according to the lenient definition that the ’leg’ defined by Chazal as ’pubh’ is the thigh) is the line of the knee and elbow. And preferably a little beyond so that even in a sitting position the ’leg’ is not revealed.
In ’God, there are thousands and tens of thousands of successful religious women who dress nicely and respectably within the boundaries of Halachaic modesty. We can learn from them.
With greetings, Yaron Fish’l Ordner
In the Sada Purim Katan 5622
Rebbetzin Pnina Kohanat Talit is right that modesty is not only for women. Similarly, Maimonides Barak explained in his book Ilkot Diot that scholars of Torah should behave modestly, in a way that is dignified but not conspicuous. I will cite a few examples:
The scholars themselves demonstrate great modesty: they will not disgrace themselves or expose their heads or bodies. Even when he enters the throne room, he will be modest.
A scholar of Torah should not shout or scream when he speaks. He should not raise his voice excessively, but should speak calmly with all people. If he sees a place where his words are beneficial and heard, he says; and if not, he should not He is silent and does not sleep in his speech, and he does not add or subtract except in words of peace and so on. In general, he does not speak except in acts of kindness or in words of wisdom and so on. He does not converse with a woman in the market, even if she is his wife or sister or daughter.
The attire of a scholar of Torah is beautiful and clean clothing, and it is forbidden for him to have a stain or grease on his clothing. He does not wear the clothing of kings, such as gold and purple clothes that everyone looks at, nor the clothing of the poor, which he despises those who wear it, but rather modest, beautiful clothing.
And his flesh should not be visible under his clothes, like the lightest linen clothes that are made in Egypt, and his clothes should not be carried on the ground except to his heels, and the palm of his hand to the tips of his fingers.
Indeed, it was not the custom of our ancestors to wear trousers except under a robe that covered them, and for example, the Amsterdam Haggadah depicts the wise men wearing robes that reached the ankles (as described by Maimonides according to Chazal), while their disciples wore robes that covered the knees, but no less.
It was only in the 19th century that the kingdoms of Eastern and Central Europe decreed that Jews wear European clothing, which included (for men) a short jacket that did not cover the trousers, and since then this habit of wearing a robe has spread among the Jews.
Rabbi Aharon Yeshaya Rotter testifies (in the teachings of the Chazon Ish, at the beginning of his book ‘Shaarei Aharon’ on the O”H) that the Chaz”a objected to the custom that had spread to wear trousers without a long coat covering them, and when he was forced to go without a coat on hot summer days – he made sure to wear a small, long tallit to cover his trousers. It seems that the Chaz”a kept his objection to himself, but did not so instruct the public, since the custom had already spread to ease up on this.
We have concluded that the customs of modesty are beautiful for every Torah scholar, both male and female.
Best regards, Eliam Fishel Werkheimer
I assume that the European clothing that shortened the jacket for men but not for women, stemmed from the clothing of knights on horseback, who found it difficult to ride with a robe covering their legs, so they shortened the coat.
Paragraph 1, line 1
… In Chapter 2’ Mahallochot…
Paragraph 2. Line 1
Scholars practice great modesty…
Forgive my ignorance, but what do you call "Torah in Gebra" and "Torah in Heftza"?
Try searching the site.
In the Book of Purim, a small collection of p.b.
Lev. HaG. Shalom Rav,
See Rabbi Michael Avraham's article, "Talmud Torah: Din in Hapza or Din in Gebra," on the "Asif" website, as well as his response on "Torah in Gebra and Torah in Hapza" on the "Hidanin" website.
Incidentally, there is a distinction between the Feast of Shavuot, which was the "giving of the Torah" to Israel, and the days of Purim, which were the "acceptance" of the Torah in Gebra, with the consent and internalization of the acceptance of the Torah in the hearts of Israel.
With greetings, Gabriel Hapzadi Zweidinimovsky Halevi
May God bless the honor of the rabbi who pleases God and people, R’ Gabriel Heftadi Shalit”a. Happy little Purim!
And perhaps it should be said that there is a distinction between the Torah ‘inside the Golan’ which works only on the gabra to elevate the individual and the community, and the ‘Torah of the Land of Israel’ which works to sanctify also the ’hafza’ of the land and the entire earthly reality to be sanctified with the holiness of the Torah, and this can only be done by the people of Israel in their land.
And it is the distinction between ‘Michael the Great Archangel’ who raises the souls of the righteous, and David’ and Abraham’ who bring holiness to the earthly reality. ‘Michael’ expresses the ’Torah in the gabra’, while ’David’ And Abraham brought down the Torah to the Haftza.
With blessings, Gath Halevi
The Purim miracle happened abroad. Apparently, there is a virtue in revealing God specifically there. And as the Arizal intended, until he knew, etc.
On Purim, a small demokfin, 2012
Lev. G. Shalom Rav,
A miracle abroad has the virtue of being “far away, it seems to me.” Life in exile requires the individual and the people to maintain the memory of the past and the longing for the future in order to survive, the present in which “I am the servant of Ahasuerus, I am” is gloomy. And it is not without reason that one should drink excessively on Purim in order to forget the gloom of the present and rejoice.
But there is much in the miracle of Purim as preparation for the exaltation of life as a free man in his own land. The uprightness of Mordecai, who refused to submit to Haman’s “personality cult,” The heroism of Esther who dared to come to the king ‘who was not religious’ in order to save her people; and the solidarity that the entire nation of Israel showed by gathering for prayer and cry, then for a defensive war against the enemies and finally by accepting the days of Purim in all their places of residence.
The commandments of Purim also strengthen the solidarity and brotherhood in the nation of Israel. Solidarity with the people of the place to the extent that even a ‘born of his own day’ is considered a permanent resident, and solidarity between one person and another and between those who have and those who have not.
The uprightness of stature is expressed by ‘Purim Demokpin’. If in the fourteenth the nation struggled for salvation and survival – then in the fifteenth the nation struggled for rebellion, for ‘ensuring killing’ Although the haters of Israel have ceased to be an immediate threat, the uprightness of the stage requires that the foci of hatred be uprooted from the root ‘for the few Gentiles who did not lay a hand on it’. And therefore, this day is dedicated to the walled cities from the days of Joshua the son of Nun’ the first to the warriors against Amalek and the conquerors of the land.
Following the revival of the spirit of the nation in the miracle of Purim – the way was paved for the building of Jerusalem and the Second Temple and its re-establishment as the center of the entire nation by the regulations of the ‘men of the Great Knesset’.
The second stage was begun by the Hasmoneans, who fought the decrees of the Greek king who sought to destroy the people of Israel. They succeeded in rebuilding the Temple and reviving the kingdom of Israel until it became a regional power in the days of King Jannaeus. But the political consolidation failed to overcome the tendencies of internal division, until the two sons of Jannai, in their struggle for control, invited the Romans, who destroyed the independence of Judah and later the Temple, to be arbitrators.
This is the tragedy of the people of Israel, that in the agony of exile it is easier for them to unite around their God and His Torah, while when they begin to ‘be a free people in their own land’ – processes of degeneration and separation begin. And we have no other remedy than to ‘trust redemption to redemption’, to take all the burden of faith and brotherhood that lived us in our exile, and not abandon them when we reach a life of independence in our own land, and thus we will become a ‘holy people in our own land’, who succeed in sanctifying the name of God as a nation.
With blessings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”
Paragraph 7. Line 3
… The faith and brotherhood that kept us alive…
It should also be said that the Torah of the Exile is ‘in the constant need to overcome constant obstacles, whether from the ‘light that is in the air’ or from the ‘enslavement of kingdoms’ that hinder and interfere.
But in the Land of Israel – we must cultivate the inner desire for goodness, the deep desire of the heart that will bring us to work out of will and love. And as the friend of the Khozar king said, the land will not be built except by the desire and longing for it. And it is not for nothing that the Book of Deuteronomy, given near the entrance to the Land, is filled with a strong emphasis on working the Lord with love and joy.
If in the Exile the Torah is ‘in the constant need to overcome obstacles – After all, the Torah of God should be "in the heart", filled with an inner desire to love God and His creatures, and therefore the legend that empowers and internalizes the desire for good plays a central role in the complete structure of the Torah of the Land of Israel.
Of course, this is not exactly the simple words of Ramada 🙂
With greetings, Aisha
In short:
Torah Khov is ‘begbra’, a Torah that focuses on the individual and the community and on overcoming a ‘contrary’reality’, while ‘Torah Yi’ is ‘hepza’, on being filled with desire and a desire for goodness until the good will penetrates the depths of the soul.
If the work of the individual involves overcoming passions and obstacles – then the work of the public involves creating a good atmosphere, an encouraging ‘public climate’ in which the aspiration for goodness succeeds in becoming the common good, and therefore influences even the most earthly levels.
If the Torah of Babylon illuminates the darkness – After all, the Torah of the Land of Israel produces bright daylight. The Torah is pure in all its dimensions, revealed and unexplained, Halacha and Aggadah, and therefore it restores the soul and illuminates the eyes ‘like the rising of the sun in its might’.
With greetings, Nehorai Shraga Agami-Psisowitz
In the Hasidic electronic newsletter ‘Nachalat Yaakov Yehoshua’, dedicated this week to ’Purim Katan’, a number ‘Neot Deshe’ is quoted in the name of the Rebbe ”Rabbi David of Suchatsov (son of the ’Shem of Shmuel’) that on Purim we rejoice over two things – for receiving the Torah anew and for the miracle of salvation.
When there are two Adars – the joy is divided. On Purim Katan in the first Adar (near the tribe in which Moses began to explain the Torah) – the joy focuses on receiving the Torah anew, and therefore this joy is primarily spiritual.
In contrast, on Purim in the second Adar (near Nissan, the month of redemption) – The joy is focused on the miracle of salvation, and therefore the joy is expressed in actions - the reading of the scroll, feasting and joy, the sending of gifts and gifts to the poor.
With greetings, Simcha Fishel Halevi Plankton
The fact that 'Little Purim' will be focused on receiving the renewed Torah also fits well with its proximity to Parashat Ki Tisha, in which we learn about the possibility of receiving a renewed Torah even after the terrible crisis of the sin of the calf.