From: abramwtz@coral.bucknell (Jon Abramowitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Torah is the center of every Jew? (was Orthadox Judaism and women)
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:28:06 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish
Organization: Bucknell University
NNTP-Posting-Host: citrine14.bucknell.edu

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.
 
 

> 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!!!)

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!

 
 
> 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 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.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish