I recently had a discussion regarding my post on matrilineal descent and intermarriage with a reader of mine. Some of the following points were made by her or myself in the midst of the discussion. They do not necessarily pertain to that post, rather they can be applied to many other issues. What I write here is not to be taken as an attack against her, it is for the general public's consumption. Here are some thoughts:
- First- One cannot use one's own logic or theology to make a claim against Halacha to invalidate the Halacha. Accepted Halacha is Halacha, there is nothing one can do about it. If the Talmud/Gemara and Zohar (or any other Kabbalistic work, for that matter) argue on a certain law, the final ruling ALWAYS follows the Gemara, not the Zohar, because the former is HALACHA, the Law, while the latter is merely esoteric/spiritual/mystical, etc... In fact, the Vilna Gaon (Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, 1720-1797) said that there is no such thing as a contradicition between the Zohar and the Gemara. If you thinks that there is in a certain case, it just means that you do not properly understand what the Zohar is saying. The Zohar, Sefer Yetzirah and other works of Kabbalah were written in a way that the masses cannot exactly understand what is being said. The Talmud is a disorganized recording of halachik debates from the Amoraic period. Therefore, it is more likely that the Zohar is misunderstood than the Talmud is. Furthermore, not many people in the world are experts in Kabbalah. A pre-requisite (besides the famous age--40) to begin learning Kabbalah proper is first knowing and deeply understanding all of the Talmud, Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, and Midrash. Only after all this can one even begin to start the introduction to the how-to section of the Zohar. I can guarantee that there is no blogger in the world who deserves the title of "Kabbalist" let alone "Beginner Kabbalist." And for sure, any person who goes by such a title and questions a valid halacha just shows that they truly do not deserve such a title. (I'm not even talking about that watered-down Kabbalah of Madonna, Britney Spears and the Burg gang).
- Second- "Maran" is a title for Rabbi Yosef Cairo the author of the Shulchan Aruch and the Beit Yosef of the Tur. Every serious scholar (whether in Halacha, Talmud, or Kabbalah) has to know that fact. It is even on Wikipedia! (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maran and no, I did not just add that). If one does not even know who the Shulchan Aruch was, how can one even contemplate deciding a halachik question? Just because someone reads a little bit of Jewish mysticism that does not make one a posek (if you don't know what that means, check the wiki) and surely not a Kabbalist! I myself am not even a Posek or Kabbalist, but then again, I don't go around questioning accepted halacha. I do not even consider myself a Talmud scholar, I just happen to know a few bits and pieces. Imagine my Rebbe/teacher, who is not a posek nor a Kabbalist either. He is at the level of Talmud scholar. Me? I'm dirt. Some bloggers who don't know anything? Lower than dirt? One can be a good person even kind, good-looking, well-behaved,but that does not make one into a Kabbalist. Certain knowledge is required and none of us have that knowledge. NOW my poin: If the Shulchan Aruch says something, it's law; if he only brings down one opinion, then for sure it's law. If he brings multiple opnions, there are established ways to decide which opinion is the law. There is only one Shulchan Aruch written by Maran Rav Yosef Cairo (there are various other books with the name "Shulchan Aruch", like Kitzur Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfreid which means the "abridged Shulchan Aruch" and Shulchan Aruch HaRav of the first Chabad Rebbe, but none are totally accepted by world Jewry as the Shulchan Aruch is accepted). Law is Law. So the Halacha says a person is a Jew if his mother is a Jew or if the person properly converts. End of story. Law does not need support or necessarily even logic behind it, law is law. Surely the law does not have to conform to your ideals or personal judgements. The law does not bend. Not that the non-malleablilty of law needs justification, but if we start bending rules for one thing, then who is to stop one from bending laws in regard to something else. If we allow you to do this, then maybe you will conclude that that should also be allowed. Who is any of us to come and argue with the Law? You say that in your own judgement, this law should be untrue. You say that this law is not justice. The biggets proof that it is justice is that the Gemara, Tur, Shulchan Aruch et al. all rule like this. If you want to bring a proof that this law is not proper justice, I dare to find such a proof; there is none. Justice is defined by HaShem, just like morality is. What the Torah cals moral is moral. Justice and morality come from the same source, both are defined by the Torah. See my essays on the subject of morals:
http://rchaimqoton.blogspot.com/2005/10/moral-jew-murder.html
http://rchaimqoton.blogspot.com/2005/10/moral-jew-ii-mistake.html
- Third- Do not say that Orthodox Jews discourage questions. I ask questions, read any essay that I wrote, tons of questions are raised. I do not always ask questions based on my own logical judgements, I ask questions that Rabbis have asked for hundreds of years, I just reference different sources to different issues and answers to write my essays, I do not, g-d forbid, "make up" my own ideas and post them as the Torah True views on subjects. Even in such cases where the question is my own, the question does not "disprove" the validity of the practical halacha, it is just a pilupl-type (look up pilpul) discussion to further one's understanding of the halacha, not to disprove the halacha. Case in point: I once came across a Gemara which said something and a passage in the writings of Josephus which said another, totally opposite thing. They both about something which should be historical fact. There are a few ways one can view this situation:
2) The words of the Gemara can be asked as a question on Josephus
3) Josephus and the Gemara contradict each other
4) Both are wrong anyways
- Personally, I favor the second approach. This is because what the Gemara is said is accepted as fact. There is a side issue that Josephus said something else, so the Gemara's words can be used to ask a question on Flavius Josephus. (And the answer also maintains the veracity of the Gemara, it just re-explained Josephus in light of the Gemara.) The same is our situation here. The Shulchan Aruch says something. You have an opposing logical conclusion. Therefore, the Shulchan Aruch's words can be asked as a question on whatever your logical idea that causes you to doubt the Shulchan Aruch is. The Shulchan Aruch is a proof that your logic thought pattern in whatever instance is flawed. You just have to figure how it is so.
- Fourth- Even if one does not disagree with the practical final halacha, but disagrees with the way to arrive at that conclusion, it is delegitimizes the Shulchan Aruch. When I quote from the Shulchan Aruch, I only used the Shulchan Aruch to show that Halacha's validity. The Shulchan Aruch reflects the Midrashim, Mishnah, Talmud, Rambam, Tur, Rif, Rashi, Tosfos, Ramban, and all of the Rishonim up until 1492. So I only said it in the name of the Shulchan Aruch to reflect all those previous entities which the Shulchan Aruch actually represents in halacha. I could also have said that the Tur says the same halacha, but saying the Shulchan Aruch does already encompasses that.
- Fifth- This is a for sure a logical fallacy: "Since nobody argues on this point, it must be a fake point." A lack of argument does not deligitmize an idea, on the contrary, is shows that such an idea is undisputed!
- Sixth- Something that is technically correct is not necessarily correct. Even if in practical halacha one can show how something is totally permitted, or is not liable for punishment, that does not mean such an action is permitted to do. For example, nowhere in halacha does it say that I cannot decorate the curtain of an Torah Ark in a synagouge with a Swastika. Does that mean that its ok for me to go to a synagouge and paint a Swastika on the Ark (even assuming it was my own synagouge that I owned and wasn not damaging someone else's property)? No. Besides that fact that if the issue ever came up in halacha it would be forbidden, it's not right simply because its not down. It's an affront to the religion and the tradition. Similarly, other issues which are technically allowed (let's say allowing women to wear Tzitzis), should not be done simply because of that. Women wearing phylacteries might be technically allowed, but Orthodox Jewish Women do not so such things.
- (Seventh- Since the issue keeps coming up from my readers who keep emailing me: Women writing a Sefer Toah is not even included in this rule, Rabbeinu Yerucham, a Rebbe of the Rosh, father of the Tur, writes that since a woman is not obligated to wear Tefillin, which is true according to everyone because its an explicity passage in the Talmud, then she cannot write Tefillin. Since she cannot write Tefillin, then the writing of a woman does not have the halachik status of writing, so even if she wrote a Tefillin or Sefer Torah, the writing is not even called writing. It's not that her Torah is invalid, it's not even called written! It's not different than a computer writing a Torah. A person has to do it with certain intentions. But I'm not trying to get in a fight wit hthe female Sofer because that will get noone anywhere, because she's not going to repent, I won't convince her. She has to realize it on her own.)
I finally got that out. Good. Now I can sleep...
orcid.org/0000-0001-9317-3282
26 comments:
You are going to go to sleep and leave this disorganized mess to try and pass itself off as a rational post?
Have you lost your mind?
No woman needs to repent for wanting to write a sefer Torah.
Importantly, halachah doesn't prohibit a woman (אתתא) from writing a sefer Torah ... or from wearing tefillin or tzitzit either. An אתתא can do all these things and more ...
I never said that she should repent for wanting to write a Sefer Torah, although I can see how you inferred that from what I did write. I never said there is a prohibition for a woman to write a Torah, or wear Tallis or Tzitzis. What is fact is that a woman does not have an obligation to do any of those things while a man has such an obligation. Women are exempt from time-bound positive commandments and tallis and tefillin fall into that category. Since a woman has no obligation to lain tefillin, then she cannot legally write Tefillin. This teaches that the writing of a woman is not considered in halacha as writing. Therefore, when a woman writes a Sefer Torah, the Sefer Torah is invalid because its not called written. This is explicit in the writings of Rabbeinu Yerucham, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch, etc...
There is an obligation for all Jewish males to write a Sefer Torah (or buy a sefer torah or contribute to the writing of a sefer torah). It is the last commandment described in the Torah, in parshas Vayelech. The Sefer HaChinuch, all the way in the end of the book, the last paragraph, writes that women are exempt from this commandment. See the responsa of the Shagaas Aryeh #35 (Rabbi Aryeh Leib of Metz (1765-85) who discusses this at length. See also Minchas Chinuch who says that (613:9) that the writing of a woman is not called writing and therefore their Torahs are invalid. That is the final halacha. In the words of the Minchas Chinuch, "This is clear and true."
When I wrote she should repent I was referring to the fact that she was causing so many people to be using invalid Torah scrolls thinking that they were kosher. Later I realized that she was also sinning by needlessly writing the name of HaShem, because since her Torah scrolls are invalid, why is she writing HaShem's name for no reason?
1)"The Talmud is a disorganized recording of halachik debates from the Amoraic period. Therefore, it is more likely that the Zohar is misunderstood than the Talmud is."
The talmud is insanely organized, that is part of it, it's organzation teachs us to think like Hashem thinks.
2)"One can be a good person even kind, good-looking, well-behaved...."
Actully, I belive the gemera says that ugly people are better at learning than good looking people.
3)"(there are various other books with the name "Shulchan Aruch", like Kitzur Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfreid which means the "abridged Shulchan Aruch" and Shulchan Aruch HaRav of the first Chabad Rebbe, but none are totally accepted by world Jewry as the Shulchan Aruch is accepted)."
hmmmm. The Kitzur is the same shulchan aruch, just the parts nessary for daily life. I don't know anyone who will not accpet it.
4)"For example, nowhere in halacha does it say that I cannot decorate the curtain of an Torah Ark in a synagouge with a Swastika."
For the love of Phil. i told you not to use that exampel. No good can come of this. Plus, many secular jews don't get sarcasm. how do you think they ended up
with oranges on seder plates?
5)"Flavius Josephus"
Flavius Josephus???? Who cares about what he says. he sold us out to the Romans.
6) There are valid reasons why women cannot were taffilin and such. It is too long for me to type, but they exist and bear looking into. As for those who say other opions exist, I would like to point out that almsot 100% of the time, the person saying this has not read the other opions in their orginal form, only some snippet of the net. Moreover, they don't bother to learn the reasoning and logc behind the decenting views.
As a point of note, Jews hold by the majority, not the decent. so if 99.99% of rabbis say X and 1 dude says Y, we always hold by the X.
As another thought, I'd like to comment on your point about how we want Judaism to comform to our own morals. It's intersting how we feel something is right, and then decide it is right. I came across a nice little story, told to me by Rabbi Avraham Union, Head of the RCC.
It is worse than presumptuous to tell people how to define themselves. Orthodox Jews believe in — and have always believed in — a binding set of laws, one of which prohibits male homosexual behavior. They also believe that our understanding of God’s law is not open to interpretation to suit society’s every new passing whim.
Abraham Lincoln asked a farmer, "If we call your horse’s tail a leg, then how many legs would your horse have?"
"Well, five I reckon," the farmer responded.
"Wrong," Lincoln said. "It would still have four. Calling something a leg doesn’t make it one."
Similarly, calling someone Orthodox does not make him such. His effort to adapt halacha just to fit neatly into his lifestyle is incompatible with Orthodoxy. this person is no more Orthodox than people would be were they to try to deny the Torah’s objection to unethical business practices just because it is good for the bottom line. The Jew must adapt to the timelessness of the Torah, never the other way around.
While someone may wish to delude himself about his observance, he should be honest enough not to force a new definition of Orthodoxy upon a community very satisfied with one that has worked for millennia.
(made slight changes to wording)
Sadly, this probelm is almost as old as Judaism itself. It's mentioned outright in the Torah as follows.
"And it will be, when he hears the words of this curse, that he will bless himself in his heart, saying, 'I will have peace, for I am ruled by my own heart,' in order to satisfy his thirsts.
HaShem will not consent to forgive him, for the anger of HaShem and His jealousy will smoke against that man, and every curse written in this book will lie upon him, and HaShem will blot out his name from under Heaven."
Devarim ["29:17-19]
Sadly, if you don't belive in the Torah, this probally means nothing to you.
*sigh* Oh Ilan *sigh*
1) The Talmud is highly disorganized in comparison to codes of Halacha like the Shulchan Aruch, Tur and Rambam. In order to properly learn one topic, one cannot just learn the tractate that it is relevant too. Chances are that that topic can be found all over Shas and one must look at more than one tractate at a time.
2) Cite a reference and I will concur.
3) The Kitzur is totally not the same as the Shulchan Aruch. The Kitzur was written hundreds of years after the Shulchan Aruch. The Kitzur is not accepted by everyone. In many cases the Kitzur and the Mishna Berurah argue on points in halacha. In such cases, Hungarian /Hassidic Jews usually follow the opinion of the Kitzur, while Lithuanians/Misnagdim follow the opinion of the Chofetz Chayim (who wrote Mishnah Berura).
4) It's not sarcasm. It's a legitimate comparison because all changes in tradition can be treated equally because they are essentially all the same (although some can involve more issues than just changing tradition, some even are halachik questions, but I've already established that there is no real halachik issue in women putting on tefillin or wearing tzitzis, they are allowed but are not obligated to do so).
5) Yet many secular historians find him more reliable than other contemporary or older primary sources.
6)Nu, back yourself up!
I have nothing to say to your second comment.
Chaim Chaim Chaim....
When will you ever learn?
1)the codes are just that, codeifcations (Sp) of Jewish law, or course. Therefor they have to work in a squential way. However, the talmud, is not an outright codefcation, therefore, it does not have to adhear to the same structure. However, as a student such as yourself is no doubt aware, there is a reason for where it everything is, it was not simply slapped together. Rather, we must say that the order of the talmud is absed on something other than systmatically teaching laws. We can say that the talmud does not work in a seqentual order, but we must say that it has an order.
2)I will site something that you even told me once.
The Emperor's3 daughter said to R. Joshua b. Hananiah: 'Such comely wisdom in an ugly vessel!'4 He replied. 'Learn front thy father's palace. In what is the wine stored?' 'In earthern jars.' she answered. 'But all [common] people store [wine] in earthern vessels and thou too likewise! Thou shouldst keep it in jars of gold and silver!' So she went and had the wine replaced in vessels of gold and silver, and it turned sour. 'Thus,' said he to her, 'The Torah is likewise!' 'But are there not handsome people who are learned too?' 'Were they ugly they would be even more learned,' he retorted.
Nedarim 50b
3) Name one group that will not hold by the kitzur, they may argue a law, but we all hold by it as a whole.
4) trust me, it's going to come back to bite you in the butt if you are not careful.
5) So do we care what secular historans hold by? eventully, history and torah will line up, as new discoveries prove more and more the torah's truth.
6) I told you to provide the sourse. Im your critic, my job is to heckel you, not to provide info.
Be nice to be buddy, Im the only one defending you at this point. Also, I will sick my poddel on you.
Besides, im a great kabbalist so be nice. I am a student of the baba sali, by which I mean I have a picture of him on my wall. I also know many fancy kabbalistic words such as "sefirot" and "schekenia" I also own a two copies of the Zohar, and although I can't read them persay, they give off rabbi-vibes that do all kinds of things. Lastly, Im going to get a blog, because if I have a blog that calls myself something, it must be true.
The Sefer HaChinuch, all the way in the end of the book, the last paragraph, writes that women are exempt from this commandment.
And what is the exact word used for "woman" in describing this exemption? Isha? אשה/אישה
My point is that a woman אתתא may not be exempt, and may in fact, be obligated. In this case, the "writing" of a soferet would indeed have the halachic status of "writing" and her sefer Torah would be "valid".
That is the final halacha.
There is no such thing as a final halachah.
In the words of the Minchas Chinuch, "This is clear and true."
Not for אתתא it isn't.
When I wrote she should repent I was referring to the fact that she was causing so many people to be using invalid Torah scrolls thinking that they were kosher. Later I realized that she was also sinning by needlessly writing the name of HaShem, because since her Torah scrolls are invalid, why is she writing HaShem's name for no reason?
Let's leave specific persons out this discussion of the halachic implications of a woman sofer, shall we?
For the love of Phil. i told you not to use that exampel.
LOL. He's already clearly demonstrated that he doesn't listen.
Liorah said...
There is no such thing as a final halachah.
Ya, the pretty much is. We end up holding one way.
My point is that a woman אתתא may not be exempt, and may in fact, be obligated. In this case, the "writing" of a soferet would indeed have the halachic status of "writing" and her sefer Torah would be "valid".
I think you might want to read the sefer yourself before you comment on it. In any case, the wording is pretty clear, as are all the explations on it.
Be nice to be buddy, Im the only one defending you at this point. Also, I will sick my poddel on you.
LOL. What great entertainment this post has turned out to be.
Are you afraid to tell me the exact word that is used for "woman"?
Are you asking me?
If you are, im more than happy to look it up first thing in the morning
To Ilan:
After our discussion this morning, I think we both can agree that the Talmud is in order, but is not organized by topic. Regarding the Kitzur, I already said that most non-Hungarian Jews basically reject the book (but agree with most halachas because the Kitzur didn't make the stuff up, he's just saying accepted halacha).
To Liorah:
He uses the words אשה and נשים to refer to women, but that's not relevant. אשה and אתתא mean the same thing, except that אשה is in Hebrew and אתתא is in Aramaic. You can't say that they are two different things.
You said that there is no such thing as final halacha. Ah, but there is. Halacha was given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Halacha was G-d-given. It does not evolve.
Plus, Liorah, you are the one who started talking about the woman sofer, I just mentioned her in passing in parantheses in my post, you're the one who started discussing her and her in the comments.
We Agree on something? Trully the redemtion must be here. As the Chabadnicks say, we are living with moshiach. Actully I tried living with moshiach for awhile, and he always left his dishs in the sink for me to wash.
He uses the words אשה and נשים to refer to women, but that's not relevant. אשה and אתתא mean the same thing, except that אשה is in Hebrew and אתתא is in Aramaic. You can't say that they are two different things.
Of course I can, and have already here. Isha is Canaanite and itta is Aramaic. And because isha is of Canaanite origin and can "raise other gods" (see my link), women have traditionally been exempt. Itta is neither Canaanite nor will she "raise other gods". Consequently, the exemption does not apply to an itta.
You said that there is no such thing as final halacha. Ah, but there is. Halacha was given to Moses at Mount Sinai. Halacha was G-d-given. It does not evolve.
Ah, but you are wrong - fingers of the endless are also endlessly unfolding new insight, meaning they are ever evolving.
Liorah, you are the one who started talking about the woman sofer, I just mentioned her in passing in parantheses in my post, you're the one who started discussing her and her in the comments.
No, I didn't. I've only written on my blog in general terms pertaining to "the institution" of women being halachically valid sofers. I've never referred to any specific soferet (of which there are two of them in my blogroll who do sofrut work professionally). And, I think the itta-isha distinction makes any halachic prohibition/exemption of "woman" inapplicable. In other words, through the word itta, a "woman" is not exempt, can be obligated and her writing called "writing".
What the hell? You don't make any sense. You're just making things up as you go along. That's not Torah, that's the ramblings of a bumbling idiot. I can make up my own rules also and claim they are halacha. There is no difference between Isha and Itsa. You made that up. Your proof is a JAPANESE dictionary. Think about how ridiculous you sound.
My proof is not only a Japanese dictionary. Itta is ubiquitously recognized as the Aramaic word for woman. It is also recognized that "isha" is not from the same root as "ish" (How The Hebrew Language Grew, Edward Horowitz):
The root of אשה, namely אנש seems to mean "to be weak or delicate". The word איש is from another root which most scholars agree means "strong".
Everything I've written is supported. I have NO DOUBT that other scholarly support can be found in references I don't have and have not studied, as what I've written is clearly true (as demonstrated by my own experience and discovered through my own study).
addition: The root of ish is איש which means "withstand", i.e., a man of proven character. In contrast, the root of isha is אנש which means to cause weakness and to be frail.
reference: Etymological Dictionary Of Biblical Hebrew, R' Matityahu Clark
Think about how ridiculous you sound.
Ya, well, I'm a grandma so I really don't care. I'm at that age where I'm practising to wear purple with an attitude like the woman in this poem.
Liorah, you clearly started this discussion about the famle Sofer. Just look in the comments here.
To rip a page out of your book, let's get a little Kabbalisitc for a moment. The Arizal (the KING OF KABBALAH) explains the origins of the words Ish and Isha. Everyone knows the Talmud famously says in Tractate Niddah that there are three parters in the creation of any person. There is the mother, father, and HaShem. This is hinted to in the words for man and woman. Man is איש and woman is אשה. They come from the same word, אש meaning fire. This tells us that if you take out the י from man and ה from woman, then the relationship between a man and woman is as dangerous as fire. This is because the י and ה together are the name of HaShem. Only if a man and woman live together with HaShem and by His laws are they actually considered a man and a woman, otherwise they are just a fire. That's the Arizal' take on the origin of the words Ish and Isha. I considered writing an essay about this topic at one point, but I decided against doing so. Perhaps I will re-think that idea.
Making up this idea that there is a difference between Isha and Itsa is like me coming along and saying that there is a difference between Ish and "Man" because some books refer to them as Ish and some as "Man". Such a distinction is logically flawed because those books that say Ish are in Hebrew and those that say Man are in English. Simiarly, Isha is in Hebrew and Itsa is in Aramaic. They mean the exact same thing. And if assuming like your made-up theory that they are different, who decided what's an Isha and what's a Itsa? And remember, the word Isha has to refer to someone because then it would render many things obsolete if the term Isha can never be applied.
Blah blah blah...
The Arizal (the KING OF KABBALAH) explains the origins of the words Ish and Isha.
--I belive meseches Kallah mentions it too. It might not be that one, but it's in one of the minor ones.
The Arizal (the KING OF KABBALAH)
--Hail to the King Baby!!!
He uses the words אשה and נשים to refer to women, but that's not relevant. אשה and אתתא mean the same thing, except that אשה is in Hebrew and אתתא is in Aramaic. You can't say that they are two different things.
--Wait, seriously thats all her issue. I was hoping it was something diffrent that we just did'nt get. So if it says it hebrew, we can ingore the halchot in armaic. Wow. with that logic, when it says women can't be rabbis, it's ok today, because women are not being rabbis, they are FEMALE rabbis.
And where in the Torah it says not to let your ox gorge someone, thats cool because the aramaic word for ox is diffrent, the the laws in the gemera might have nothing to do with it.
*note: That was sacrasm, do not go sic livestock on someone and say I told you it was cool.
Post a Comment