From: khaikin@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (dmitry khaikin)
Subject: Re: Torah is the center of every Jew? (was Orthadox Judaism and women)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:10:24 GMT

In article <abramwtz-110193135937@citrine14.bucknell.edu> abramwtz@coral.bucknell (Jon Abramowitz) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.061307.19977@cis.ohio-state.edu>,
>khaikin@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (dmitry khaikin) wrote:
> 
>
>> Torah is not the center of Orthodoxy. Torah is the center of every Jew: Reform,
>> Conservative, Orthodox, whatever. I am Orthodox, but if I were Reform or 
>> Conservative I would be insulted by this. Torah is something all Jews live
>> by whatever your interpretaion of it is.
>
>I must disagree.  I am Conservative and Torah is certainly at the center
>for me.  For one, I study psychology and believe that the mind and brain
>are the same thing.  I believe in evolution.  But, I am a practicing Jew
>and celebrate most of the holidays.  When taking part in Jewish customs, I
>am not intentionally doing it because of Torah (how could I if I havn't
>devoted my life to understanding it like more religious people have.

So, what are you doing it for? If not because Torah said so, then why?
Because of your own decisions? Because you are smart enough to decide
for yourself? Yes, and I agree you certainly are smart enough to decide
for yourself, but everyone has to have a base that he/she bases her/his
decision on. So, my question is, what is your base then?

> 
> 
>
>> We all know that men are OBLIGATED to learn Torah and women are not. "Nashim
>> vaavadim uktanim pturim mitalmud Torah"--Rambam,Mishneh Torah, Hilchot
>> Talmud Torah. (Translation: "Women, slaves, and minors are free from the 
>> obligation of Torah study." and he goes on saying : "Nevertheless, 
>> a father is obligated to teach his son Torah while he is a minor, 
>> as [Deuteronomy 11:19] states: "And you shall teach them to your 
>> sons to speak about them."" Note! The verse does not say to teach 
>> your daughters.)  So, what does that mean? It means that if
>> they wanted to they could, in fact, learn if they had time. (Let's skip
>> the part about the slaves and minors because it is a different issue at 
>> this point.) Why do I say "if they had time"? Well, as we know women have
>> other resposibilities like taking care of the kids and so on. Now, that
>> does not mean that the husband does not have to help her, although, in 
>> some cases help is impossible.:-) 
>> So, at this point, I hope, I explained that women are not obligated to 
>> learn Torah. So, does that really mean that a woman can just not 
>> learn Torah at all then? In fact, there are a lot of arguments between
>> Rabbis about this issue. Since we know that if you don't learn there is
>> no way you can perform the mitzvot properly or complete, the statement 
>> that women don't have to learn Torah seems to be incorrect. So, is it?
>> Well, again there are probably tons of opinions of different Rabbis
>> on that, but what they seem to agree on is this.
>
>Yes this is probably so- and another reason why Torah is not a part of my
>life...too many inconsistencies and internal contradictions.  No wonder
>there are so many opinions- the Torah has to make up it's mind before we
>can try to interpret it! (ex:  the abortion issue!!!)

See, that is interesting. I am talking about one thing and you switch to
another. Why? Why don't you prove me wrong in my point logically. But
don't switch to any abortion issue. I gave a reasonable argument which I
have not seen anybody even try to disprove yet, and all you can say that
it is wrong. That's what most people here claim I am, as Orthodox, is
supposed to do. So, if you want to prove this wrong, then prove it
wrong! Just saying that it is too old for modern society is not good
enough. You have your standards, I have mine. I say that mine are based
on Torah, you say that yours is based on something else (What is it
exactly?). So, fine, give me an explaination of that quoting from your
sourse, whatever it is. See, you never proved me wrong and I would like
you to.

>
>I think that this is an example of the commonly argued point that the
>scriptures that make up the Torah were written at times and places where
>its morality was useful.  Now, however, we are in a VERY different
>historical context.  If the Orthadox want their lives to revolve around
>Torah that is fine (as long as they leave me alone.  Howver, please don't
>speak for the rest of Judaism!

See, here is another problem right there. Well, first of all, what you
just said requires proof, but it is the same proof that I asked you to
give me before. Another thing, and I think that is very important, is
leaving you alone. You see, when somebody marries a non-Jew it is not
only a problem for them, but it is a problem for me and other Jews as
well. I don't want to be left the only Jew in the world just because of
somebody's ignorence. So, when you say that it none of my business, it
not exactly so. It is my business because it affects me, so the theory
of "I don't hurt you, so, leave me alone!" does not exactly work.
And another thing, that I thought I clearified in the begging of my post
before. Why do you ask me not to speak for the rest of Judaism? Did not
I state right before the original article that it is my opinion and only
my opinion? In fact, did not I specify that I did not even consult a
Rabbi on this particular interpretation before? So, in fact, you saying
that I speak for the rest of Judaism is not true. That's even a little
bit funny: all I do is try to interpret a blessing and you accuse me of
speaking for the rest of Judaism.

>
> 
> 
>> So, now that you already forgot the original question, I will repeat it.
>> Why is it that in our morning prayer men say: "... for not having made me
>> a woman" and women say: "... for having made me according to His will"? 
>> Indeed, and that was a very good question, why don't women say similarly:
>> "... for not having made me a man"?
>> As I implied before, what is it that makes the Jewish lives of a man and a
>> woman so different from each other (I mean spiritually, not physically)? 
>> There is no doubt in my mind that it is the obligation of learning Torah. 
>> After all, it is the most important mitzvah there is. But at the same time, 
>> as I stated before, a woman must learn that minimum. So, what would it 
>> really mean for a woman to say: "... for not having made me a man"? 
>> It would mean that she is thanking G-d for not giving her the obligation 
>> of learning Torah.
>> That is exacly what you are saying Orthodox women lack. So, in fact when you
>> say that you are contradicting yourself. 
>
>Forgive me, but you are contradicting yourself too!  If Torah was the
>center of all Jews, there would be no need to have this conversation since
>we'd all be in touch with his argument, hmmm?

I guess, what I meant before is that for all Jews Torah should be the
center, but in practice it is not and to say that that this did not
happen before would not be true. However, again you said nothing about
the argument itself. Taking an easy way out and switching to another
issue does not prove my argument wrong.

>
>
>> I would like to make my last point. Why is it that I said: "... that she is 
>> thanking G-d for not giving her the obligation of learning Torah"? Why would
>> it be wrong for me to say 'that she is thanking G-d for freeing her from the
>> obligation of learning Torah'? If in fact, I would have said that, then one
>> could say: "Hey, why not, after all, as you just said He did free her from
>> that, did not He?" So, why did I put it this way and not the other? And the
>> answer is the same. He did not free her from that obligation, she still has
>> it but on a totally different level, which I explained earlier, and which is
>> to learn that minimum that makes her "shomer mitzvot".
> 
>
>Well, I would like to make MY last point- going back to the 'sexist' thing.
> First of all, we call G-d "He".  Suppose it's a "She" and She is mad as
>hell that we've been refering to Her as a man!  That is sexist.  All this
>argument above does is twist the writings from thousands of years ago
>around to sound good- to back up your point.  But today, women in certain
>Jewish sects are treated as inferior- they must serve men and can not take
>part in the same religious customs that man can.  It extends further than
>just this.  Why not look at the world we live in now and evaluate the
>status of different sexes?  It probably makes much more sense!
>
>Jon A.

Jon, I have seen and talked to a lot of Reform and Conservative people
and the one thing they have in common (not all of them of course!) is
that once you prove them wrong in the example of sexism THEY make, they
immidiately switch to another one. I think that's why these
conversations about sexism go on forever and then start again. It is
like a formula: one says something, another one proves him wrong and the
first one instead of proving the second one wrong says something else...
Let's stick to originally somebody claim is sexist. I proved them wrong.
Now, if you would like to you can prove me wrong, but there is no point
for switching the original argument to some other issue. Read my
argument again, then prove it wrong, but don't make some general
statements and just say it's done. My guess about why people switch to
other thing in an argument, not really proving this wrong is because
they are failing to prove it wrong, so, they look for something easier.
Prove me wrong here first, please.

Thanks,
Dima
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "A word is worth one coin; silence is worth two."_____ The Talmud.
  "Silence is good everywhere, except in connection with Torah."____ The Zohar.
  khaikin@cis.ohio-state.edu  ( Dmitry Khaikin, Columbus Ohio )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish