And which option do you think is correct?

The second. The exposition from which they derive the disqualification of women is quite dubious, and it is fairly clear that at its root stood some rationale or purpose.

In all human societies there was a total division of labor between men (outside) and women (inside) as a result of scarcity. Modern affluent society destroyed that division and took women out of the home.

Thank you for the answer.
Option A: why is there an intrinsic disqualification?
Option B: why did they think women were less reliable?

With God’s help, 6 Elul 5780

To Haim — greetings,

As far as I know, no one claims that a woman’s testimony is unreliable, for a woman is believed regarding the most severe prohibitions, such as the laws of menstruation, which carry karet, and tithes and challah, for which there is liability of death. Most of the medieval authorities said that the disqualification of women from testimony is a “decree of Scripture.”

The author of Sefer HaChinukh gave a reason: that women are not precise because of their preoccupations. Based on this, the former Sephardic Chief Rabbi, Rabbi M. Uziel, held that nowadays, when women are involved in commerce and practical affairs, one may rely on their testimony because nowadays women, too, are precise. At any rate, even in the days of the Sages and the medieval authorities there were enactments to rely on women’s testimony in situations where they had unique information.

See my comments on Eli Haddad’s article, “Going Out into the Open Spaces,” on the “Shabbat Supplement – Makor Rishon” website (dated 7–8 Elul 5773), and Dr. Avi Winroth’s article, “Women in the Judicial Process,” on the Daat website.

Best regards, S.Z.

It is worth noting that appearing in religious court was itself considered degrading in the days of the Sages, and therefore a woman is generally exempt from taking an oath when collecting her ketubah, since a man does not want his widow (or even his divorcée) to be degraded in religious court. All the more so, the rigorous cross-examination that every witness underwent by the religious court was a very unpleasant experience, which the Sages preferred to spare a woman, unless the case involved unique information.

Besides the fact that women are characterized by compassion and mercy — a wonderful trait in life, but problematic in a judicial process in which “the law pierces the mountain” and “there is no mercy in judgment.” There is also a rationale that the Torah wanted to spare a woman the unpleasant experience of someone being punished on the basis of her testimony, unless in the court’s judgment there was a necessity for the woman’s testimony.

Paragraph 1, line 1:
… for a woman is believed regarding prohibitions…

Paragraph 4, line 3:
… that every witness was required to undergo by the religious court…

Addition to paragraph 4:
They also exempted “honored women” from appearing personally before the religious court as plaintiff or defendant, and allowed them to be represented by an “antler” (= an authorized representative, attorney), unlike other litigants, who are obligated to present their own claims and be present for the receiving of testimony and the issuing of the ruling, without the option of appointing a representative.

The fact that giving testimony and being examined about it were considered a form of “degradation” is the reason that Torah scholars are exempt from testifying before a religious court composed of scholars lesser than themselves, so that their honor should not be demeaned.

And I heard people say that nowadays kollel men are like housewives of earlier years, and women who earn a living are like the men of earlier years, and therefore by law women are fit for testimony and kollel men are disqualified.

1. I don’t know, just as I don’t know why relatives are disqualified.
2. Because they were less familiar with what was going on and didn’t always understand the nuances. Someone who is shut up at home and lacks education doesn’t always understand what she is seeing in front of her, like a person from a different culture.

Mana, I’ve also heard that claim, and there’s something to it. Of course it’s a bit exaggerated, but there is definitely some substance to it. You can see here kollel men from the Haredi world whose arguments suggest that they don’t really understand the nuances of what’s happening around them.