Question

Hello Rabbi,

Last week I was asked… Unfortunately, one of the women attacked and said that we (?) always say whatever we feel like. Regarding stains we say whatever we feel like, regarding legumes we say whatever we feel like.
I didn’t really understand the claim, or how it connected to the current discussion, so I cut off the discussion. But it got me thinking—how can it be that for a year and a half I’ve been teaching her and trying to show that there is an orderly analytical system behind the Jewish laws, and she still claims that we (?) say whatever we feel like?

As I kept thinking, it occurred to me that maybe this is connected to the world of studying the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).
Many of the women who entered the world of Torah began in the world of Bible study (and remained there).
Bible study has a number of advantages over in-depth Talmudic analysis and Jewish law. It is much easier to cover it from beginning to end. And of course, as the Rabbi has argued—it's enough that we learn a few tools, do the analysis, and then we can say whatever we like.
The Rabbi has already raised the questions about Bible study, and I won’t repeat them. I’ll just say briefly: in the world of Bible study it’s very easy to pick up the right language, learn a tool or two of analysis, and start running with it. But worse than that, even the great analysts ultimately say whatever they want (I have a nice example from the portion of Vayetze, which has no open or closed paragraph breaks; dividing the portion into two according to the exact number of verses produces a nice chiastic structure. Okay, so what? Depends whom you ask. Elchanan Samet proved from this that Jacob sinned, and Yoni Grossman proved that God fulfilled His promise. Meaning—maybe the analysis itself can be judged, but the conclusion that emerges from it—not at all). The implication is that there’s a feeling that once you’ve gone through the sources, now you can say whatever you want, as long as it’s consistent with the sources. But in a literary world, there aren’t many limits to that consistency.
When Malka Puterkovsky’s book came out, I read half of it (I broke down in the middle), and I said to myself—wow. She gathered a huge number of sources. But she has no understanding of lomdut, of analytical Talmudic learning, and of how to derive conclusions from sources. So I thought she simply lacked a rabbi.
Now I’m wondering whether the world of Bible study affects two worlds:
The world of halakhic decisors (like Malka), who don’t understand that Jewish law is not Bible study.
And the world of observers. They say to themselves: I’ve been to a few Torah classes. I understand that what happens is that you need to be “the rabbi,” you need to know the sources, and then you decide (the passage in the Bible) according to your conscience. Why don’t halakhic decisors do that more? Why is it that when it comes to X, legumes, and stains (I still haven’t figured out the deep connection between those three), the feeling is that they can’t say whatever they want, even after they know all the sources?

If this is correct, it turns out the situation is even worse than the Rabbi describes. The fact that it isn’t clear what the value of Bible study is, beyond the immense holiness of the Hebrew Bible and the Torah study involved in the very act of reciting the verses—that’s a small problem. Even the problem of belittling biblical figures (which is what the people of Har Hamor who oppose this kind of study focus on) does not seem to me all that enormous. But the damage done to Torah as a result, the failure to understand the difference between the systems, and therefore the feeling that one can dive into the world of analysis and Jewish law in the same way, and on the other hand the attitude that halakhic decisors and their rulings receive—all this seems to me genuinely problematic.

Unfortunately, Rabbi, I think this harms the women’s world more than the men’s world. I say this painfully, as someone who invests a great deal of time and energy trying to train women to engage in the world of Jewish law. I also wonder whether this is the opposition the Rabbi encountered when he publicized the sad fact that their level is not all that impressive. If they succeed in Bible study, why shouldn’t they be able to succeed in analysis and Jewish law?
In Lesson 4 the Rabbi said: sit, listen to how one learns, and then repeat the material; we had an opportunity to do that for a few years. Only afterward is there an expectation that we can dive in on our own. In the women’s frameworks, that possibility does not currently exist. Fair enough if they knew that this was what they lacked. But the easy entry into the world of Bible study damages the understanding that there is a need for an apprenticeship in this.

I hope I haven’t gone on too long.
I’d be glad to hear the Rabbi’s thoughts.

Shabbat shalom!