Про женщин, и ваще
Feb. 22nd, 2005 11:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ymarkovhttp://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v15/mj_v15i47.html#CKW
Это написано больше 10 лет назад. Р' Марк Шапиро с тех пор написал несколько книг, в т.ч. "The Limits of Orthodox Theology (Maimonides' 13 Principles Re-appraised"
From: Marc Shapiro <mshapiro@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 23:03:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Western Culture and Torah
I would just like to clarify a few more things regarding the
relationship between Western culture and Torah values. In doing so I am
taking issue with a number of things people have written, in particular
what my friend Shalom Carmy wrote about more Torah study helping
eliminate racism. I think it is clear to anyone who knows something
about Jewish history, and human history, of the last millenium that with
few exceptions, people can read anything they want into the Torah. Once
you leave Orthodoxy the margins are even bigger (witness the infamous
Conservative teshuvah permitting homosexual relationships) but even
within Orthodoxy the margins are very big. What determines how people
read the Torah are views they have acquired, either from the
"atmosphere" of the Bet Midrash, Western culture or other places.
Let me give an example which will illustrate this clearly.
Although it may surprise some people, the common medieval Jewish view of
women is negative, almost exclusively so. Medieval commentaries are full
of comments about how women were secondary in creation, that they were
created to serve man, that they are not as important as men, that they
cannot make any decisions without asking their husbands' permission etc.
I know that modern Orthodox apologists won't talk about this but it is
true nonetheless.(In general, when it comes to honesty, apologists rank
up there with politicians and used car salesmen. Some are just ignorant
of the facts, but most are intentionally misleading because of what they
regard as higher goals.[those who read my essay on the thirteen
principles know that I argued that Maimonides did the same thing] I
won't deny that apologists have their time and place [less so now than
in years past], but they shouldn't be confused with objective
discussions of the facts) Just last week I bought one of the new books
of Makhon Yerushalayim, Meshivat Nefesh by a leading Geramn rabbi some
500 years ago and on parshat Bereshit he elaborates on this theme. This
work is especially fascinating because the author claims that men and
women were originally created separate and equal, each with their own
role, and it was only after Eve's sin that women were demoted in rank so
that they are now inferior to men.
Now why is it that ideas such as this make modern Orthodox, and
even right wing Orthodox uncomfortable? How come such ideas are not
generally found in contemporary commentaries which like to stress that
men and women are both equal in God's eyes, with the same importance and
level of kedushah, and that they just have different roles but that
women are not subservient to men. Do we understand the Torah better
than the medievals. Obviously not. What has happened is the same thing
that occurred re. the sciences. When people read the Torah today they
accept modern science so they don't take passages literally which depart
from this science. In other words, their preconceived notions determine
how they read the Torah. As our sages say, look into it for everything
is there. That is, whatever is found to be true by science is in
agreement with Torah.
The same can be said re. ethical insights etc. Modern Jews are
sure that women have just as much importance and dignity as men, and
therefore they cannot believe that the Torah would teach otherwise, so
they read the Torah in a way different than the medievals did. But why
is this so. These new insights did not come from a closer reading of the
Torah which the medievals missed. On the contrary, in a ghetto there
would have been no change in the evaluation of women. No one reading
this list would have felt uncomfortable with the medieval view of
women. Probably some would have felt uncomfortable with Maimonides'
ruling that a women who refuses to do her womanly duties is whippped
(there is a mahloket aharonim if the Bet din or the husband is to
administer the punishment), but they would have been able to find
comfort in Raavad's view that she can be starved into submission. The
notion that women are able to live their own lives and make their own
choices is simply not an option for medievals (and this includes
Christians and Muslims).
Those of us who have a more positive view of the place of women got
this insight from modern society, accepted the truth of this insight,
and then read it into the Torah, which of course must be in accord with
all Truth. Alas, the medievals were stuck in a time which was not privy
to such knowledge and were thus led to write what appears to most of us
as untrue, and even cruel. (Some might sense that this type of approach
as relevance to many different areas. E. g. women's torah study. It is
very difficult for modern Orthodox women who love to study Torah to
accept the fact that according to many (all?) gedolim it would be better
if we were still in a ghetto when women would not be exposed to secular
studies and therefore would not have to study Torah. Let's not forget
that Bet Yaakov was the answer of a society in crisis, not a
lekhatchilah approach.)
This is exactly what has happened throughout history and is not
merely natural but the only way history develops. When Rambam approached
Torah he "knew" that certain insights of Aristotle were correct and
therefore could not read the Torah in any other way but in accordance
with Aristotle. To show how the Torah can be manipulated, he even said
that he could, if he wished, interpret the book of Genesis in accordance
with Aristotle's view that the world is eternal! We all know Rav Kook's
view that Genesis can be read in accordance with evolution. When Hirsch
came on the scene he was convinced of the value of secular educaation
and therefore read this view into the Torah, or better read the Torah in
accordance with this view. Rav Kook loved Zionism and therefore all
Torah became a proof text for his view. The Satmar rebbe hated Zionism
and therefore all Torah became a proof text for his anti-Zionism. The
point is that there is very little objective proofs for anything in the
Torah (our sages speak of one who can prove the kashrut of something
unkosher.) All of the people mentioned in this paragraph first came to
their views of the world (a very complicated process), and then
interepreted Torah in accordance with these views.
Therefore, it is foolish for anyone to seriously criticize
Western values since much of what we believe has its origin in these
values. It is true, that now that we accept these values we see that the
Torah also teaches them and teaches them much better than anyone
else. But the fact remains that we didn't discover these values in the
Torah, and left in a ghetto would never have discovered them (Some
segments of Judaism are still in a ghetto and thus know nothing about
what many of us see as central Torah values).
Having said this,it is now easy to see why gedolim are so
important. Since basically any idea can be read into the Torah, how can
we be sure that the idea is authentically consistent with the Torah. How
to prevent anarchy? The idea of the gadol teaches that the sage, because
of his great learning, can sift out the authentic from the
inauthentic. It is true, that even the gadol's views are conditioned by
ideas formed outside of the gemara in a complex way, but we have faith
that the gadol will be able to determine which ideas are consistent with
Torah and which are not. Thus, there can be a variety of different ways
to understand the tradition, and as long as they have the support of a
gadol, should be considered valid and consistent with Torah truth, since
there are seventy faces of the Torah.
Marc Shapiro
Это написано больше 10 лет назад. Р' Марк Шапиро с тех пор написал несколько книг, в т.ч. "The Limits of Orthodox Theology (Maimonides' 13 Principles Re-appraised"
From: Marc Shapiro <mshapiro@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 23:03:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Western Culture and Torah
I would just like to clarify a few more things regarding the
relationship between Western culture and Torah values. In doing so I am
taking issue with a number of things people have written, in particular
what my friend Shalom Carmy wrote about more Torah study helping
eliminate racism. I think it is clear to anyone who knows something
about Jewish history, and human history, of the last millenium that with
few exceptions, people can read anything they want into the Torah. Once
you leave Orthodoxy the margins are even bigger (witness the infamous
Conservative teshuvah permitting homosexual relationships) but even
within Orthodoxy the margins are very big. What determines how people
read the Torah are views they have acquired, either from the
"atmosphere" of the Bet Midrash, Western culture or other places.
Let me give an example which will illustrate this clearly.
Although it may surprise some people, the common medieval Jewish view of
women is negative, almost exclusively so. Medieval commentaries are full
of comments about how women were secondary in creation, that they were
created to serve man, that they are not as important as men, that they
cannot make any decisions without asking their husbands' permission etc.
I know that modern Orthodox apologists won't talk about this but it is
true nonetheless.(In general, when it comes to honesty, apologists rank
up there with politicians and used car salesmen. Some are just ignorant
of the facts, but most are intentionally misleading because of what they
regard as higher goals.[those who read my essay on the thirteen
principles know that I argued that Maimonides did the same thing] I
won't deny that apologists have their time and place [less so now than
in years past], but they shouldn't be confused with objective
discussions of the facts) Just last week I bought one of the new books
of Makhon Yerushalayim, Meshivat Nefesh by a leading Geramn rabbi some
500 years ago and on parshat Bereshit he elaborates on this theme. This
work is especially fascinating because the author claims that men and
women were originally created separate and equal, each with their own
role, and it was only after Eve's sin that women were demoted in rank so
that they are now inferior to men.
Now why is it that ideas such as this make modern Orthodox, and
even right wing Orthodox uncomfortable? How come such ideas are not
generally found in contemporary commentaries which like to stress that
men and women are both equal in God's eyes, with the same importance and
level of kedushah, and that they just have different roles but that
women are not subservient to men. Do we understand the Torah better
than the medievals. Obviously not. What has happened is the same thing
that occurred re. the sciences. When people read the Torah today they
accept modern science so they don't take passages literally which depart
from this science. In other words, their preconceived notions determine
how they read the Torah. As our sages say, look into it for everything
is there. That is, whatever is found to be true by science is in
agreement with Torah.
The same can be said re. ethical insights etc. Modern Jews are
sure that women have just as much importance and dignity as men, and
therefore they cannot believe that the Torah would teach otherwise, so
they read the Torah in a way different than the medievals did. But why
is this so. These new insights did not come from a closer reading of the
Torah which the medievals missed. On the contrary, in a ghetto there
would have been no change in the evaluation of women. No one reading
this list would have felt uncomfortable with the medieval view of
women. Probably some would have felt uncomfortable with Maimonides'
ruling that a women who refuses to do her womanly duties is whippped
(there is a mahloket aharonim if the Bet din or the husband is to
administer the punishment), but they would have been able to find
comfort in Raavad's view that she can be starved into submission. The
notion that women are able to live their own lives and make their own
choices is simply not an option for medievals (and this includes
Christians and Muslims).
Those of us who have a more positive view of the place of women got
this insight from modern society, accepted the truth of this insight,
and then read it into the Torah, which of course must be in accord with
all Truth. Alas, the medievals were stuck in a time which was not privy
to such knowledge and were thus led to write what appears to most of us
as untrue, and even cruel. (Some might sense that this type of approach
as relevance to many different areas. E. g. women's torah study. It is
very difficult for modern Orthodox women who love to study Torah to
accept the fact that according to many (all?) gedolim it would be better
if we were still in a ghetto when women would not be exposed to secular
studies and therefore would not have to study Torah. Let's not forget
that Bet Yaakov was the answer of a society in crisis, not a
lekhatchilah approach.)
This is exactly what has happened throughout history and is not
merely natural but the only way history develops. When Rambam approached
Torah he "knew" that certain insights of Aristotle were correct and
therefore could not read the Torah in any other way but in accordance
with Aristotle. To show how the Torah can be manipulated, he even said
that he could, if he wished, interpret the book of Genesis in accordance
with Aristotle's view that the world is eternal! We all know Rav Kook's
view that Genesis can be read in accordance with evolution. When Hirsch
came on the scene he was convinced of the value of secular educaation
and therefore read this view into the Torah, or better read the Torah in
accordance with this view. Rav Kook loved Zionism and therefore all
Torah became a proof text for his view. The Satmar rebbe hated Zionism
and therefore all Torah became a proof text for his anti-Zionism. The
point is that there is very little objective proofs for anything in the
Torah (our sages speak of one who can prove the kashrut of something
unkosher.) All of the people mentioned in this paragraph first came to
their views of the world (a very complicated process), and then
interepreted Torah in accordance with these views.
Therefore, it is foolish for anyone to seriously criticize
Western values since much of what we believe has its origin in these
values. It is true, that now that we accept these values we see that the
Torah also teaches them and teaches them much better than anyone
else. But the fact remains that we didn't discover these values in the
Torah, and left in a ghetto would never have discovered them (Some
segments of Judaism are still in a ghetto and thus know nothing about
what many of us see as central Torah values).
Having said this,it is now easy to see why gedolim are so
important. Since basically any idea can be read into the Torah, how can
we be sure that the idea is authentically consistent with the Torah. How
to prevent anarchy? The idea of the gadol teaches that the sage, because
of his great learning, can sift out the authentic from the
inauthentic. It is true, that even the gadol's views are conditioned by
ideas formed outside of the gemara in a complex way, but we have faith
that the gadol will be able to determine which ideas are consistent with
Torah and which are not. Thus, there can be a variety of different ways
to understand the tradition, and as long as they have the support of a
gadol, should be considered valid and consistent with Torah truth, since
there are seventy faces of the Torah.
Marc Shapiro
