This video could be an excellent exercise for a course in critical reading (watching?).
A collection of quotations taken out of context, some of them clearly not understood by the woman quoting them.
No argument is formulated, and therefore no conclusion either.
Plenty of straw-man and ad hominem fallacies, etc. etc….

What exactly is the problem with punishing a woman with a whip?

There is only one answer: she should run for her life.

Binyamin, what exactly is the problem with punishing you with a whip?

"If you want an answer, you need to spell out the question. All the more so if you want a detailed answer." In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man; so since an answer is wanted, here are the claims in the video in order.
If we neutralize matters of Kabbalah (20,25), science in the Talmudic sages (18-19), plain nonsense (3,8,11,13. Maybe also 29. I don't know about 31), reasonable things (15,27), or things that were explained (14 was explained in column 15), what generally remains are two groups containing the claim:
A. General statements from various periods about the nature of women (1,3,7,12,17,24)
B. Harmful Jewish laws (4,5,10,16,21,23,26,30).

And the corresponding questions:
A. What is the status of such statements today? How do rabbis explain continuing to say them?
B. What is the explanation of these Jewish laws, and what force do they have today?

The claims in the video:
1. Rabbi Ovadia. A woman has no mind for Torah. A woman's wisdom is only in the spindle.
2. Baba Sali. A woman who wears a wig will be burned.
3. Rabbi Berland. A woman is a donkey without understanding.
4. Otzar HaGeonim. She must stand when her husband enters. She must not raise her voice to him. When he beats her, she should be silent.
5. Maimonides. A woman who refuses to do the work she is obligated to do is compelled even with a whip.
+6. The New Testament. Love your wives.
7. Rabbenu Bachya. Once woman was created, Satan was created with her (answer on the Kipa website: absolute cruelty can only be found in a woman. Why was she created if she is so bad? To serve the man).
8. Rabbi Moshe Vaknin. Some women are blockheads; don't be surprised why men murder women.
9. Rabbi Yitzhak Zilberstein. The reason for traffic accidents is women driving cars (they don't control themselves).
10. Maimonides. It is degrading for a woman to be constantly going out. He should not let her go out except maybe once a month.
11. Rabbi Yehoshua Weitzman. She needs perfume because naturally her smell is less good.
12. Talmud. A woman is a vessel full of excrement, etc. (Rabbi Cherlow: the amora probably thought women were despicable).
13. Rabbi Ravid Nagar – if a menstruating woman waters a plant, it can die. There was a study done.
14. Rabbi Eyal Karim – the beautiful captive woman was permitted in order to preserve the army's fighting fitness and the soldiers' morale.
15. Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi – a rapist who impregnates fulfills the commandment of be fruitful and multiply.
16. Intercourse with a minor less than 3 years old is not considered intercourse and one is exempt from the full punishment.
17. Talmud. A woman who drinks 4 cups of wine demands a donkey in the marketplace.
18. Talmud. Testing virginity by smelling wine from the mouth while she sits on a barrel.
19. Something written in the Oral Torah leaves rabbis no choice but to accept it as scientific truth (Rabbi Aryeh Stern – we have no ability to explain it. Maybe nature was different then).
20. Rabbi Baruch Gazai – in the books of the kabbalists, an immodest woman is reincarnated as a cow.
21. Talmud. If he married her without specification and defects were found in her, she leaves without a ketubah payment.
22. Rabbi Ronen Shaulov. Children die because women are immodest (hair uncovered).
23. Jewish law. One recites the blessing "who has not made me a woman" (together with a gentile and a slave. Rabbi Avraham Saba – that the woman is a sign of curse)
[Gentiles. 24. The Talmudic sages. A people likened to a donkey. The best of the gentiles—kill him.]
[Gentiles. 25. The Ari – gentiles have no spirit or soul and are not equal even to an animal fit for food.]
26. Jewish law. The man takes precedence over the woman in saving life and in returning a lost object.
27. Jerusalem Talmud (Rabbi Ba). Jewelry is forbidden on the Sabbath because a woman is showy and on the way to show it to her friend she will walk four cubits.
28. The Ari would spit when he saw an immodest woman.
29. Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak. It is immodest for a woman to be a driver.
30. Rabbi Elyashiv. It is permitted to humiliate someone who violates the Jewish religion in matters of modesty (a woman getting in line first on a mehadrin bus line).
31. Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi. If her husband doesn't like fat, she has no right to gain weight because it ruins marital peace. (And once she is no longer a virgin her value, according to God's will, drops dramatically.)
+32. Jesus did not punish an adulteress (he taught that only those clean of any sin should punish an adulteress). (The messiah chose to display the true face of God: forgiveness, kindness, love, and compassion. God sees the woman as equal among equals.)

Avi, you wrote that this could be an exercise in critical reading. Fair enough.
1. "No argument is formulated and therefore no conclusion." The argument is that Judaism, in theory, in theoretical Jewish law, and in actual behavior, treats women as despicable. Christianity does not. Therefore women who do not think they are despicable should understand that Christianity is probably right (in general).
2. "A collection of quotations out of context, some misunderstood." Please specify according to the numbering above.
3. There are straw-man fallacies. Where are the "ad hominem fallacies"?
4. What is hidden under "etc. etc."?

You're great, Shulyata. But I don't agree with you about the neutralizations, nonsense, reasonable things, or things that were explained.

And do you at least agree that the questions from Jewish law and from general statements of the Talmudic sages are stronger than the rest, or not even that?

Shulyata, unfortunately I don't have time for a precise analysis, but briefly:

1. Several assumptions are embedded here:
A. The truth of Judaism (that is: whether there is sufficient basis to live by it) is derived from someone's view of the morality of its contents. Not true. If the principles of faith are true, then Judaism is binding even if it is not moral, and if they are false, then it is not binding even if it is morally exemplary.

B. Everything said by sages fully represents "the position of Judaism." Not true. Some statements are based on a historical context, and ignoring that is anachronism; some statements were disputed.

2. Taken out of context: "the man takes precedence over the woman in saving life and in returning a lost object" – I assume someone thinks this is related to chauvinism. Obviously not, and that is clear from the passage there (the criterion is levels of obligation in commandments). In any case, whoever thinks so needs to prove it.

3. Mistakes: as far as I remember, Maimonides does not claim that a husband may beat a woman on his own initiative, but rather that a religious court may order it (not that that's okay in the 21st century, of course. And therefore no halakhic decisor would say this today).

4. A man convicted of sex offenses was brought here as an authority on attitudes toward women. What does that say about the integrity of this video?

It's all the same garbage. The others who wrote these things were ignoramuses from the period of the Talmudic sages. And I'm not saying this from the perspective of "decline of the generations" (the opposite—the more time passes, the more humanity advances), but because they really are close to the ignoramuses of their own time. Like parrots, only stupider, repeating their words. You softened the quotations here, and you shouldn't have.

Avi
1A. True, but it isn't dichotomous. A significant conceptual error by the greatest authorities can be an indication of a non-divine source (something like what Rabbi Michael Abraham says about the question of why tests are needed).
1B. These are not only marginal sages but also some of the greatest halakhic authorities. And if others disagreed, so what? These and those are both the words of sages, called living words. An anachronistic fallacy itself requires explanation (and I guess many Orthodox Jews would not accept it).

2. I disagree. Basically you've only moved the question one step back. And the fact that there is an ad hoc criterion doesn't help much (the Kaadan High Court case. One can always produce a theoretical explanation that hides a negative perception)

3. Suppose so. What is your answer about beating by a religious court? Without a categorical separation between Jewish law and morality (which many do not accept).

4. Berland? Not significant.

In my opinion it's clear that the video raises a correct (and well-worn) claim that requires explicit repudiation and clarification from today's Orthodox leaders. You don't need to be a great Talmudist to see that a disparaging attitude toward women has fossilized in Jewish law. That said, in comparison to Christianity one has to be careful to compare like with like (general declarations from sacred texts, things said by sages through the generations, a new statement or incidental application to women of a general principle, binding Jewish laws, statements by lower-level figures). But you also don't need to be a great anthropologist to see that interpersonal treatment of women is not worse in Orthodox societies; the issue concerns public attitude and status.

With God's help, 18 Sivan 5780

In the Mishnah (in tractate Keritot) that was quoted, it indeed says that "the man takes precedence over the woman for sustaining life and for returning a lost object," but they forgot to quote the continuation: the woman takes precedence over the man for clothing; the man's livelihood takes precedence over the woman's; a woman's honor is more important than a man's honor (as it is said that a man must honor his wife more than himself. Yevamot 62).

It should be noted that this Mishnah is apparently disputed, since in Ketubot they disagreed regarding a person who left little property: the first tanna held that the sons should be supported because they engage in Torah, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel held: "the daughters should be supported and the sons should go begging," and the halakhic ruling follows Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, that the daughters' support takes precedence over the sons'.

Maimonides, in the laws of charity, indeed rules like Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in Ketubot that the woman takes precedence over the man both in livelihood and in clothing, for the man can go begging, whereas the woman, whose humiliation is greater, should not be brought to such a situation.

Tosafot tried to reconcile the Mishnah in Keritot with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in Ketubot, and determined that the woman takes precedence over the man both for livelihood and for clothing (as Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says), so that she will not be forced to beg, and only regarding rescue is the man preferred, because he is obligated in more commandments.

In any case, according to everyone, we hold that regarding livelihood—the woman takes precedence over the man.

With blessings, Shtz

With God's help, 18 Sivan 5780

The ordinance enacted by the sages that a woman's earnings belong to her husband is in exchange for the husband's duty to feed and support his wife, since "they enacted her earnings in exchange for her maintenance."

Since this ordinance was enacted for the woman's benefit, the Talmud in Ketubot says that a woman may say, "I do not wish to be maintained, and I will not work," and then she is exempt from any obligation to work for her husband and is entitled to complete financial independence (the opposite of the situation today, where there is a forced half-and-half partnership between the spouses, even if the woman's income is far greater).

Maimonides also rules this way, that a woman may say, "I do not wish to be maintained, and I will not work." According to this, when Maimonides says that she is compelled with whips (by a religious court, of course), it must refer to a woman who demands that her husband continue to support her but refuses to give the agreed exchange. Even in this, all the medieval authorities disagreed with Maimonides and held like the Raavad that "there is no punishment by lashes for women"; rather, in that case the husband is exempt from supporting her.

That is regarding compulsion by a religious court, where it was accepted even for men that one compels performance of commandments by beating, and nevertheless most medieval authorities determined that for women such compulsion is not used. Regarding a husband who beats his wife, the Beit Yosef wrote that he is warned and excommunicated. The Rema ruled (based on Maharam) that his hand is cut off (unless this is a case where the wife curses him for no reason or insults his parents, in which case he is not punished this way; and Rashba wrote that they seat a female neighbor between them to determine who is at fault in the quarrel).

With blessings, Shtz

With God's help, 18 Sivan 5780

Regarding the relationship between a man and his wife, the sages commanded that a man should love his wife as himself and honor her more than himself, and correspondingly a worthy wife does her husband's will. When both spouses know and appreciate one another, there is between them "love and brotherhood and peace and friendship."

This mutual appreciation rests on the mutual importance that each has in building a faithful Jewish home. As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Scripture placed reverence for the mother before reverence for the father—"Every man shall fear his mother and his father"—and Scripture placed honoring the father before honoring the mother—"Honor your father and your mother"—to teach that they are equal to one another. The father teaches his son Torah, and the mother persuades him with words and strengthens in her children the desire to be good people and faithful Jews and people of Torah.

And so Rabbi Hiyya explained why he honored his wife even though she caused him great distress, saying: "It is enough that they save us from sin and raise our children for Torah study," and all the more so when speaking of a woman who encourages her husband and strengthens him in Torah study.

After all, the sages taught that a man without a wife lives without Torah, without blessing, without peace, and not only that, but they went so far as to say that he "is not even called a human being" (and because of this they nearly got themselves clobbered by the Christian censors, who saw the ideal in abstaining from life with a woman).

Just as sharp expressions were said by the sages against men who do not behave properly—so too sharp things were said against women who do not behave properly. But "a woman of valor who fears God is the crown of her husband," and she is the foundation of a faithful Jewish home. The observance of the Sabbath, kashrut, and purity in the home depends on her, and the education of the children in Torah and good character depends on her, and whether the home is a place of Torah and kindness depends on her.

With blessings, Shtz

Shulyata,

1. It can lead to reexamining the foundations (and even that is doubtful), but if they passed successfully—there is no escaping belief. In any case, someone who uses this argument needs to show that he has some test other than his moral perception. Otherwise, he will never accept a religion that tells him to do something he would not have done on his own.

2. I don't think it is ad hoc. As for one step back, note that differences between man and woman (which may entail different obligations) are not equivalent to chauvinism. There is no moral problem at all in claiming that.

3. I didn't understand the question. As for the separation between Jewish law and morality, that is one of the important things I learned from Rabbi Michi, if not the most important. Even if I don't agree with him on all its nuances.

I am not claiming there was no chauvinism among the Talmudic sages. That is indeed a research question, which would need to separate between the custom of the time and the influence of Jewish law. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of Judaism, and the connection to Christianity is really an insult to the intelligence.

Of course the questions are important and there isn't time. I'll just briefly note that the claim that Maimonides permits beating with whips is mistaken. The reader can find a broad discussion of this error in the new biography of Maimonides published by Resling (not religious). From comparison to other passages in Maimonides it is proven that the beating is carried out by the religious court—and it exists equally for men who do not fulfill their obligations to women. See there, for whoever is interested. (So too regarding the biblical law to cut off the palm of the woman who grabs a man's private parts. There too, comparison with law in the ancient Near East shows that they also punished a man who grabbed a woman's private parts. The Torah's novelty is that it punishes the woman despite the mitigating factors—that she came to help her husband.) A few more things I wrote about the thought of Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits on this matter (see at the end the full quote, where he complains about the attitude toward women and argues that according to Jewish law it should be changed):

The encounter—gender implications
Berkovits's thought places the principle of encounter as the highest foundation, and thereby presents a completely different standard for morality and gender equality. True, here Berkovits concedes the above feminist critique concerning the lowering of women's status in religion, but not on its terms. Consistent with his view, Berkovits wrote a work aspiring to answer the feminist critique, calling for changes from the existing patriarchal practice. The principle of encounter also gives rise to a fitting conception of Jewish law. Indeed, similarly to Maimonides, Berkovits holds that the Torah is a pedagogic creation, and it embodies a vision still waiting to be realized. His approach to Jewish law is teleological—in that it develops toward a purpose fuller than itself: "Judaism is a process throughout history… until all history is redeemed from impersonal bondage" (redemption from the impersonal is identical with encounter—G.S.). But from the principle of encounter itself it follows that God must take the human being as he is. And this includes his cultural environment as well, while presenting a moral standard that is realizable on the horizon of his free choice. Therefore one must distinguish between ideals that are authentic to Torah—Torah true))—and those tolerated by it (Torah tolerated)—the latter are stages that have not yet reached the realization of their full morality in the era in which the Torah was given, and the Torah tolerates them temporarily for pragmatic reasons and not out of identification with them. God took into account the moral level of human beings and adjusted the moral law according to their level. Such is the non-personal stage of woman, which was certainly not created by monotheism, but already existed before it and throughout the cultural sphere. Obviously monotheism did not cause the low status of women; the opposite is true: monotheism introduced the principle of encounter of every "I" with the "You," and included in this the striving for sincere and equal encounter between all sexes. But because of the principle of encounter itself, God had to meet humanity as it is, without forcing it into impossible paradigms. Yet the Torah's "pure" principles have, from ancient times—even within the Bible itself, though gently—encouraged development toward the second stage: "the second stage, which we call the personal status of woman. This stage is learned from the demands of Torah ideals. This even led to halakhic innovations that go beyond concern for women's rights and welfare." But Berkovits is well aware of the gap between the Torah ideal of encounter and the exclusion of women in life: "The truth is that we are still very far from equality of obligations and rights between husband and wife, between man and woman, in marital and family matters"… and in fact the Torah's system of development has, as it were, entered an illegitimate freeze contrary to its spirit: "The two systems of values have existed side by side for centuries, and in a certain sense this is still true in our day as well, without fully realizing what the Torah teaches, which has not brought about corresponding implementation in people's daily lives: 'Indeed Jewish law took a step forward in enactments for the improvement of women's status in married life, but not enough was done. There still remain far too many gaps in Jewish law, especially in the social status of women… while in the halakhic sphere, that is, the legal sphere, we find development and a tendency to equalize the woman's rights with the husband's rights, in the social sphere the situation is completely different.'" But the discriminatory attitude toward women that appears in Jewish sources should be seen as existing despite and in spite of the Torah, not because of it, as the critique claimed:
"In the area of social status almost nothing was done. There is no doubt that behind this situation stands a systematic outlook regarding the nature of woman. These things find expression in sayings of the sages such as: women are light-minded; women are not fit to render rulings and one must not rely on their word; girls' minds are not settled; a woman prefers one kav and sexual indulgence to nine kavs and abstinence. On what basis did the sages formulate such an approach? I think apologetics will not help us. We have reached a point where we are obligated to admit the truth: this view is not founded on the Torah… It seems to me that the negative statements about a woman's character are rooted in the social reality that was different from ours. What in our eyes is so much for a woman's honor was not perceived that way by them… In my opinion, to say today that a woman is not trustworthy but men are—that is simply not true. It is a desecration of God's name, a desecration of the Torah."
From this it is clear, then, that one must proceed from within Jewish law, and by its own rules strive to improve the status of women up to equality. The halakhic decisor is not a powerless subject in the face of the halakhic canon. The opposite is true: by virtue of the encounter between God and man, an encounter that presupposes partnership and mutual covenant, the decisor bears moral responsibility for active shaping of Jewish law. Therefore as a moral being, he cannot evade his moral responsibility, which reflects the condition for partnership with God. This principle is at the core of Berkovits's spiritual-halakhic world. And so he concludes: "There is no doubt that under present conditions our ancestors have left room for us to distinguish ourselves in, to continue in the path of the sages on this subject until equality of obligations and rights is realized. Within the framework of authentic Jewish law, everything is ready to achieve this goal."

These things sound

As for the rest of the mishmash about Christianity's position (I didn't see the video, only what people wrote in the comments), it's nonsense, and anyone who has studied Christianity, especially Pauline Christianity, understands that this is an outright lie. The most degrading attitude toward women is folded into the epistles of the New Testament (which only continues to support the fact that the spirit of the age was like that).

(I was responding to Avi's comment, but the hour got away from me and I got carried off in celebrations and Gil.)

Gil.

I always get amused that even when they show you the sun, you pilpul your way into calling it the moon at night. If you have clear proofs that the Talmudic sages intended their statements and Jewish laws for the change in question, present them. Not heaps of words. P.S. There is no proof in the Torah, for example, of changing the status of the slave.

A., I get amused by you too. The difference is that I was not created to amuse you and people like you. Proofs are presented in a discussion that has peer review. I won't sin by wasting time just to satisfy your honor. If your honor wishes to amuse himself, let him fulfill the words of Herrera: "The king's amusements are in his very essence."

To Gil—many greetings,

After all, the liturgical poet says: "Then when You stepped upon the humped mountain, the Ancient One desired Gil to amuse Him," so it turns out that you were meant to amuse the Master of the world 🙂

With blessings, Shtz

But that's what we're discussing. So what exactly is the "wasting time"? You write to me "people like you"—not that I really care, but do you even know who I am? And who are you?

On what basis exactly did you judge me that you call me "people like you," ignoramus and boor?

With God's help, 18 Sivan 5780

To Gil—many greetings,

As for the direction Rabbi Berkovits suggests, creating a "thin Jewish law" that supposedly separates the authentic Torah "core" from additions dependent on time and culture supposedly attached to it—I don't think it's worth going there. Presumably the Talmudic sages recognized the authentic "core" much better than we do, we who are far removed from the Torah's original spirit.

But there are quite a few things where it seems from the words of the sages themselves, or from the words of the medieval authorities, that there is room for "changes in nature."

For example, if the author of Sefer HaChinukh explains women's disqualification from testimony by saying that women, because they were not accustomed to economic life, were not precise in matters of factual detail—then there is room to argue that in matters in which women are involved, they are in fact precise, and on this basis there were already early enactments accepting women's testimony where only they are present.

And similarly regarding Torah study: if Maimonides explains the prevention of Torah study for women by saying that "their minds are not directed to study" (and the expression "his mind is not directed" in Maimonides' language in the laws of prayer means that a person is distracted and has difficulty concentrating)—then there is certainly room to argue that in a reality where a woman does concentrate in study, the matter is possible.

By the way, Rabbi Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch of blessed memory already noted Maimonides' words in Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, end of chapter 4, that explanations of the commandments are something that everyone can know, "small and great, man or woman, narrow-minded or broad-minded," from which it appears that the legal matters in his composition were intended also for women's study, and it is not about them that the concern was said that "they will turn them into nonsense and trifles."

In short: there is no need to declare revolutions and changes of worldview. One simply needs to discuss each matter on its own terms, according to the definitions and reasons given by the medieval authorities.

With blessings, Shtz

Shtz, more power to you for your novel point in Maimonides (about the mind not being directed), really beautiful. Let me note in this context that when the Talmud says about women that Talmudic dialectics will lead them to frivolity, it sounds very chauvinistic—but only to someone who never studied in a Haredi yeshiva (not, God forbid, as criticism of the Haredim, but to their credit: they all study, from a young age). It's a common sight to see two yeshiva boys wasting study time and engaging in clever pilpul about politics with the movement of a thumb. The explanation is that when the ideal is intellectual brilliance in Torah that is difficult to study, sometimes all that remains is just the intellectual brilliance. Or the attempt to present the intellect as brilliant (including at times very fast, sharp, biting, and absent-minded speech. At the same time, one must not deny that there is quite a bit of charm in it). There the Talmud says on the Mishnah's phrase "frivolity": "Rabbi Yehuda bar Hanina said: words of Torah endure only in one who makes himself naked for them." Rashi explains: who separates himself from all his occupations and becomes poor and lacking everything for them. Women in that period were not free for that. So if they had studied, they would have turned into another yeshiva boy. There is no benefit in such study; it only corrupts.

Many Jewish laws in the Talmud are aimed at a very high level and are not addressed to the ordinary person. So too Torah study in their time, even for men, was either extremely intensive or practically not at all (to the point that they thought if you didn't translate the Torah reading into Aramaic, they would not know that Reuben sinned and so on). If they were writing their words today they would say: "It is forbidden for a person to teach his idle son—who is really fit to be an office worker—Talmud, because Talmud will lead him to frivolity."

Likewise, their statement that one should not engage in much conversation with a woman is directed at Torah scholars who hardly spoke at all. All their time was for Torah, and for years they were not at home. They were like monks. The only trick for talking a lot about this and that was at home with the wife—so the teaching comes to tell us not to be dragged into that (without agreeing to this ideal, but a person's seat in life matters). (See more broadly in Safrai's scientific commentary on Pirkei Avot, with the accompanying discussion of the later addition to the Mishnah, "inherits Gehenna," etc.) The ordinary person, who chatters like a starling anyway, will gain nothing if specifically at home he keeps quiet while outside he sits in a synagogue of ignoramuses and children's chatter.

And as for you, A.: Master of the world. I do not know you and do not know anything about you, but on this site I amuse myself by reading your daily insults: from lumping together all the goddesses you served, to slander against our religious brothers. Bottom line, I have nothing against you and I did not mean by the term "people like you" to humiliate you, God forbid. I simply don't see any point in getting dragged into discussions with you when, as I understand it, the search for truth is not your guiding light—you already found the truth in the enlightened world, and your trolling on the site is mainly a kind of use of a virtual voodoo doll. I respect that—it's just that it doesn't interest me and is even a little disgusting to me (though I assume it comes from good intentions and some longing for something you won't find among your new friends)

Gil.

"Know you and know about you"—it's all the same. I did not serve other goddesses and I don't connect to the word "served." Truth really is my guiding light (I can't testify to that, but I notice that this is the movement in my soul), and I don't belong anywhere. I don't see my writing as trolling. That's not why I write. Wherever I happen to be, I speak and write because that's our nature as human beings. You are light-years away from knowing me and my path in life. In short, you don't know me at all and yet you judged me. To hell with you! Who needs you anyway?!

A., I was careless in my writing. If I could, I would retroactively delete the message, but you've already seen it—and it upset you. I ask your forgiveness. Truly. I didn't mean to hurt you personally like that. This isn't the forum for it; if you want, we'll talk and I'll explain what I meant. Sorry. My email is giladstn@gmail.com

On the other issues, we'll remain in dispute, and that's perfectly fine.

With God's help, 19 Sivan 5780

To Gil—many greetings,

What you noted, that even among studying men there is a concern that they will err in understanding Torah and turn it into nonsense, was indeed written there by Rabbi N. Rabinovitch, and he brought explicit words from Maimonides elsewhere where he wrote that most students arrive at distortions and mistakes in their study.

The difference is that for men, who are obligated to study Torah, one must enter even into the risk that they will err; whereas women, who are exempt from the commandment of Torah study, in their case one should use the "measure of piety" and refrain from doing things not required by law if there is a reasonable concern that a problem will come from it.

By the way, Maimonides interprets "frivolity" in the sense of something bland, tasteless. However, the word also has the meaning of sexual relations (as in the little-known Jewish law that a woman may prevent her husband's professional advancement if there is concern that by doing so her conjugal rights will be diminished, because she prefers "one kav and sexual intimacy" to "nine kavs and abstinence").

According to this meaning, Rashi explained that the concern of "frivolity" is that through a woman's Torah study, forbidden connections between women and men will be caused, and as is well known there are no small number of such problems in our generation resulting from women studying with men—see the Takana Forum, and enough said to the wise, and enough said, and I will not elaborate here.

According to Rashi, this connects nicely with Rabbi Eliezer's statement that even a woman who brought four maidservants into her marriage, and is therefore exempt from all housework, is still obligated to spin wool, "because idleness leads to licentiousness." And the Talmud explained, according to Rabbi Eliezer, that even a woman engaged in chess (nardshir, in their language), where there is no concern of "idleness leading to boredom," nevertheless must engage in spinning wool, because intellectual amusement with no practical benefit may lead to improper relationships between men and women. In this light Rabbi Eliezer's harsh response to a woman who asked him a theoretical Torah question becomes understandable: anything that is mere sharpening of the mind carries a concern of inappropriate connections.

With blessings, Shtz

It is worth noting that Maimonides writes that a woman who has studied receives reward, and several medieval authorities also wrote that one is obligated to teach her the practical Jewish laws. According to this, one may wonder: how can one define exactly the boundary between what one is commanded to teach her and what one is forbidden to teach her?

And it occurred to me to say that when the sages said, "it is as if he taught her frivolity," they did not define a prohibition, but rather removed the reward of the commandment from one who teaches his daughter Torah (but not from her). And since a person knows that if he teaches his daughter Torah he will not receive the reward of the commandment for it—he will think carefully whether it is worth investing his time in learning with her, and so such study with her will take place only where he truly sees it as a vital need and is therefore willing to teach her even without commandment-reward.

Regarding "do not engage in much conversation," it is clear that the prohibition is on excess, not on what is needed and essential. After all, the husband is obligated in the ketubah, "and I will support you," meaning to give her the emotional support that she can and should receive from him.

In those days they lived in courtyards, and most home life took place in the courtyard, so the woman spent almost all her time with her friends and neighbors, and with them she could release her tensions. Today each nuclear family lives in a separate house, and sometimes a woman is much more lonely and much more in need of her husband's listening ear.

With blessings, Shtz

Against the background of life together in courtyards, Maimonides' words about going out to the market once or twice a month are also understandable, because almost all of the woman's social life was conducted with her neighbors in the courtyard, so going out to the market was just an outing.

Shtz. Eye salves upon eye salves for the eyes. Under almost every potsherd you draw out a pearl—in the depth of the plain meaning. More power to you.

If we mentioned the husband's duty to give his wife emotional support—we should also mention the sages' instruction to consult his wife in household matters (and some say also in worldly matters. Bava Metzia 59).

This is what Jacob did: even though an angel commanded him to return to his land, he did not impose it on his wives, but called them for consultation and asked to hear their opinion.

With blessings, Shtz

Regarding "heavenly matters," it says in the Talmud there not to consult with one's wife, presumably because in heavenly matters one should consult a Torah scholar.

However, regarding Manoah, of whom it was said that he was an ignoramus because he followed his wife, it seems that according to the interpretation that he "followed his wife's advice," which is perfectly fine, at least in the case of a woman who is a Torah scholar it is proper to listen to her advice even in heavenly matters.

About Manoah's wife there is a midrash that she was called Tzelalfonit because she expounded and brightened faces in Torah (brought in "Otzar Ishi HaTanakh" by Rabbi Yeshayahu Sidi)

Shtz. Even if you succeed in changing a saying of the sages from its context, where is "Sages, be careful with your words"? Where is "the end of an act begins with prior thought"?

Gil. I do not forgive you until you go to the Craftsman who made me and tell Him about this vessel you judged. Just kidding, my brother—it's no longer a thing that someone can upset me. All the people in this world are not worth one sigh. You didn't anger me; it was just amusing. I reacted the way I did to point you in the right direction.

Thank you, A. You pointed me in the right direction.

Reality shows that in the religious and Haredi public, the woman is in first place. Whereas the Christian public is crawling with pedophiles, including the pope and all the Christian spiritual leaders who are required to abstain from women—so what about men??!

Okay, so beyond the fact that there are also beautiful and pro-woman statements in the Talmudic sages, and beyond the fact that it's clear the video is tendentious and maybe one can say that some of the things were taken out of context, still—what about statements by Mizrachi and Vaknin, for example? If you say these aren't rabbis, then I'll ask: so what do we do when there is a large audience, mainly newly religious people, that follows them? Why don't we hear enough rabbis denouncing them? 2. What exactly from the words of the sages is taken out of context? Why, for example, did they say about women that they are gluttonous, lazy, etc.? How could they call our matriarch Rachel jealous, when she gave her sister the signs so that she would marry in her place? 3. As for man before woman—are clothes worth more than life? You were right to bring the continuation because it really is a distortion when they bring only part of it, but still, do you really think that the fact that a woman takes precedence in clothing is equivalent to a man taking precedence in saving life?

As for saving a man before a woman, maybe their thinking was guided not by morality but by evolution and survival of the species. A woman is limited in the number of offspring she can bear, whereas a male can impregnate a million women. It's as if they are saying: saving an egg or sperm—the saving of sperm comes first.

Guided* in the sense of guidance.

Gil, exactly backwards.
According to your reasoning, you would have to save as many women as possible. One man could impregnate all of them.

With God's help, 23 Kislev 5781

To Gil—many greetings,

See the "Supplements and Addenda" to Hanoch Albeck's commentary on the Mishnah in Horayot, where Maimonides interpreted the precedence of the man over the woman "for sustaining life" as referring to food support. And he ruled not like that Mishnah, but like Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in Ketubot, that where there are limited assets, "the daughters should be supported and the sons should go begging."

Maimonides understood that the Mishnah in Horayot, which holds that the woman takes precedence for food support, is like the first tanna in Ketubot who holds that the sons should be supported because they engage in Torah, but in practice the halakhic ruling follows Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel. And so Maimonides rules in the laws of gifts to the poor, that the woman takes precedence over the man in all matters of charity—food support, clothing, and ransom—so that the woman should not be humiliated by begging.

Tosafot too rule like Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in Ketubot that a woman takes precedence over a man in all matters of charity. But so as not to push the anonymous Mishnah in Horayot out of practice, the Tosafists explained that "for sustaining life" means rescue, and they are forced to say that the precedence of women "for clothing" is not specifically clothing but all matters of charity.

The precedence of men in rescue, which is only according to Tosafot's interpretation, can be explained according to the Talmud in Yoma, which explains the permission to desecrate the Sabbath in order to save a life with the phrase, "Desecrate one Sabbath for him so that he may keep many Sabbaths," so that according to this, the greater number of commandments serves as a consideration in the obligation to save, to the point of overriding the Sabbath.

With blessings, Yaron Tzemach Fishel-Plankton

By the way, Maimonides nowhere discusses priorities in rescue. Even in the dispute between Ben Petora and Rabbi Akiva about two people walking in the desert with one flask in hand—where according to Ben Petora there is no precedence and both should drink, while according to Rabbi Akiva, "your life takes precedence"—Maimonides refrained from ruling.

On this issue of precedence in charity and rescue, I elaborated in my response to the question "The value of life according to its holiness" on this site. There I also noted that the Talmud's position is that one cannot determine that one person's blood is "redder" than another's.

When discussing, if one does discuss, priorities in rescue, the discussion is not about whose life is more important, but to whom the rescuer has a greater obligation (for example, his obligation to himself takes precedence over his obligation to his fellow, his obligation to his father and teacher and a priest, whom he is obligated to honor, takes precedence over his obligation to others). One can also discuss the laws of priority in commandment-performance, that "what is holier comes first," as Maimonides explained the priorities in the Mishnah in Horayot.

It should also be noted that there are other considerations of precedence, such as long-term life versus short-term life and the like. I referred there to Dr. Yaakov Shapira's article on "Priority in Saving Life" on the Daat website.

With blessings, Yitzpeh