From: david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu (David Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: Torah is the center of every Jew? (was Orthadox Judaism and women)
Organization: Department of Electrical Engineering, Tulane Univ.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 05:47:22 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-14626]: bourbon

In article <1993Jan22.010239.1@vmsa.technion.ac.il> chr04ha@vmsa.technion.ac.il writes:
>In article <1ji5s6INNen8@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu>, khaikin@cis.ohio-state.edu 
>(dmitry khaikin) writes:
>> 
>> IF you do study Torah like a man should then it would be another issue,
>> since we could argue based on Torah, not on personal experience or
>> emotions. 

A side comment. Dmitry wrote the above to Maddi Hausmann. Though Maddi
probably thinks I'm a sexist, I must say I find the above personally
offensive and not in keeping with Torah. "like a man should"?!? Why
not like a woman should? In one sense, at least, the obligation to
learn Torah is more incumbent upon women, since they must not only
know what and how to observe for themselves, but insure others also
have the requisite knowledge (as the Lubavitcher Rebbe has repeatedly
pointed out). 

>
>First, let us agree that one can learn without observing, just as one
>can observe without learning (viz. "hassid am-haaretz"). 
>
Quite true.

>Now to the question: "Is Orthodox Judaism "sexist", however the term is 
>defined?
>One possible probe into how women are regarded in traditional Judaism 
>would be to scour the sources for random expressions of rabbinical
>opinion on women.  I do not refer to halachic rules, but to random
>sayings that  describe qualities attributed to the sex as such.
>
The danger in this, though, as your "sample" demonstrates, is that
"random" expressions may be taken out of context and/or not at all
representative.

>I made a cursory check of a couple of concordances that I have at home, for
>sayings beginning with the word "nashim" in Hebrew or "nashei" in Aramaic 
>(women). The relatively few entries that do not describe "mitzvoth" required -
>or not required - of women or  refer to specific groups of women (e.g. wise
>women, witches,  etc...) are listed below:
>
This, though, is hardly a proper method of research, let alone
comprehensive.

>One is clearly complimentary:
>"Women are merciful." (Megillah 14b)
>				 
>Another implies that men and women are worlds apart:
>"Women are a nation unto themselves." (Shabbat 62a)
>
>A third pronounces on female sexuality:
>"Women are not sensitive [to genital manipulation]". (Niddah 13a)
>
>As for the remainder:
>"Women are light-minded." (Kiddushin 80b)
>"Women are talkative." (Berachot 48b)
>"Women are lazy." (Jerushalmi Pesachim Ch.1, Halacha 1)
>"Women are gluttonous." (Tohorot Ch.7, Mishnah 9)
>"Women who quarrel, quarrel about [each other's] adultery. (Kiddushin 76a)
>"Women tell each other everything in the toilet. (Gittin 45a)
>
You find 7 comments in over 60 volumes and come to a conclusion?!? And
this without any context? You could find an equal and greater number
of derogatory comments about men with the same method! (Or any group)

>There are, of course, many relevant comments that do not begin with
>the words "nashim" or "nashei", and the limited selection above hardly
>constitutes a statistical sample.  Still, it does cast some light on the
>prevailing attitude of the sages towards women at the time the Halacha 
>was being codified.
>
The two sentences contradict themselves. If there are many relevant
comments not included, and the list is not a statistical sample, it
cannot cast a light on anything except the weakness and fallacy of
your research.

David Kaufmann
INTERNET:	david@bourbon.ee.tulane.edu