Posted by Ruth Marcus on February 15, 2008 3:38 PM
All Comments (55)
Rachel:
Dear Hmmm,
Sorry for the delay in responding; it's a busy time of the week for me. I'm still enjoying the discussion, and could only think of taking it and responding in academic tone.
First of all, I think there might be some confusion in terminology. It's possible I used "halacha" in the wrong context originally; if so, I apologize for sending the conversation down a confusing path. To be sure, when I said:
"There's a difference between writing the law (active) and making sure your children understand it (passive). If it strikes you as "unfair" to point out that women are expected to live according to standards they did not actively take part in creating, then I'm not sure what I can say."
(Your response, for easy reference: "If you believe in Halacha, then you believe that the Law, both Oral and Written came from Hashem. In other words, men did not write it either. If you believe in the Law, but do not like some part of it, then take your complaint to the Boss. If you do not, then it is really hypocritical to try to use Halachic arguments to posit the view that you desire. So yes, I find you saying this to be very unfair.")
I was referring not to Torah but to the body of interpretive work that was developed by scholars up to the present day. My point was that with a few exceptions, most of that interpretive work has been done by men. Their interpretations became community standards because they were accepted and enforced (or not) by the men and women living in their communities. Which, as I said, resulted in a system in which women obeyed and transmitted community standards that they did not take part in creating.
An analogy is women's suffrage. When women did not have the vote, they were still expected to live under the legal system of the U.S., even though elected officials had no incentive to consider their needs when legislating. The people who put officials and kept them in office were men, and those were the people whose interests were protected. The interests of women could only truly be visible--let alone represented and safeguarded--after women themselves became an electorate, and politicians had to take their perspectives and rights into account.
I stand by my opinion that you can't have true equality without equal representation in the decision-making process.
And to clarify from the following exchange:
(Hmmm) "Teffillin is a much, much bigger deal halachically. There is vastly more symbolism. Yet, we do not hear women clamoring to do this mitzvah... Could that be because it is something done privately and takes a lot of time, rather than something to make a statement in schul about?"
(Rachel) "It sounds like you're implying that women's private practice is somehow unpleasant for us, and that we don't have the patience to do things that "take a lot of time." I'm going to give ya the benefit of a doubt, though."
(Hmmm) "Thank for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I was actually making a different point."
I know you were making a different point. I was addressing the sexist attitude that I read in your statement.
As I said before, half the reason a "statement" is made when a woman wears tallit is that others are pointing at her and making comments (figuratively). She does it in public, therefore it's a public spectacle. She's caught in a no-win situation. She wants to fulfill the mitzvah of wearing tzitzit (which in her movement may be "legal"). She can choose to sublimate her spiritual desire to do so (and that reeks of oppression) or she can wear her tallit and have everyone think she's ostentatious and uppity.
Whereas, if she takes some time to herself at home and lays tefillin, she's doing so invisibly, and there's no controversy.
Moving on:
(Rachel) "One thing that doesn't help, though--and I hope you don't mind me pointing it out--is the care you've taken to bring up examples of how much women are valued in Jewish tradition. In a discussion about women and tallit, you've brought up Eshet Chayil, mothers as valuable teachers, inclusion in the People through the mother's line, and women as surgeons and physicists. Those things are all important, but they're beside the point, and this happens so often in these discussions. The less priviliged party tries to address a grievance, only to have the priviliged party respond by pointing out how happy the other should be with the status quo. It's like we're constantly being handed consolation prizes.
"
(Hmmm) "Sometimes there is no legitimate grievance. The roles of women in Judaism are not consolation prizes. The reason I keep pointing out what the Tradition has to say about Jewish womanhood is to make that very point."
No, the roles of women in Judaism are not consolation prizes, and I value them highly. But to be a woman trying to have a discussion about tallit and to have a man counter by pointing out that "...Issac and Jacob would not be Jews in the first place if not for Sarah and Rivkah"--it's beside the point. So is Eshet Chayil. So is anything else that has to do with women's high value in Judaism but that doesn't have to do with the question of tallit.
It basically comes down to your own words: "Sometimes there is no legitimate grievance." I'm sorry, but only the aggrieved can make that judgment. In other words, it is not for a priviliged party to tell the non-priviliged one what she has the right to be aggrieved over. It's not a part of his experience, so he can't possibly know. Even if he later became her ally after a lot of listening and attempts at understanding, he still wouldn't _know_ it the way she does.
On the subject of women wearing tallit, I'm really feeling that we're going to have to agree to disagree. To respond to what you said, though: If Rashi allowed it in Medieval Spain (and others elsewhere), then there is indeed a legal interpretation allowing it. As you said yourself, community standards have changed. But they're not the same everywhere. The Reform and Conservative movements allow it, so in those communities, it's not crossdressing. And given the fact that community standards do change, if in some hypothetical situation, a significant number of observant women decided they did want to change and were backed up by sound reasoning, then I would hope they would be empowered to do so. (That said, I wouldn't dream of telling any community except my own that they _should_ change their standards. If it's going to happen, it should happen from within and by the consent of its own members, otherwise change is meaningless. I can be supportive in spirit or if asked for help, but otherwise, it's none of my business and I have no wish to interfere.)
Moody, are you felling a little moody? Not feeling fresh?
I remember you claiming to be a giant! You really are over-compensating for something! Now you are really, upset because you pointed out that the heavenly sexual slaves of the shahids also come in male form, and we picked up on the homo-erotic nature of that.
Such a strong response from you! A truly straight man is generally secure enough in his sexuality to not flip out like that... Do you maybe harbor some sinful thoughts about men?
You poor man, come out of the closet! In America, no one will stone you to death for expressing your feelings towards another man. Sure, you will have to tone down all the "murder the infidel language" but I am sure there is a butch out there who can bring out the "inner you." You will feel so liberated and then maybe you will loose all of this rage once butch gives you the thing you are craving!
It is really difficult to argue with demented homo creamy yellowish in the middle of male buttock stuck brains!
Hoor are heavenly creatures for both male and female and not the earthly humans, perfectly made for the rewarded ones.
And since the Revealer curse the nation of Prophet Lot (Homo's)and explained the righteous ways of living on earth therefore Muslims only correlate this way of living with what could be in the heavens which is never mentioned in DETAIL in Quran, that for example, how many for women. We Muslims prefer not to degrade/humiliate our mothers, wife’s, daughters and sisters and differentiate between w.h.o.r.e.s. and honorable women’s. We PREFER to believe what is not mentioned only Allah knows best. (And the degraded ones are who do it to them selves...smell so bad like vomit when they talk).
But 'Sahi Hadit' mentioned some time 70 or 72 'Hoors' for Heaven Rewarded men.
So again why are you jealous? Atleast females in the heavens are or will be not, as they are also rightfully rewarded what they desire and deserve.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR FILTHY PERVERTED TYPE FULL OF S.H.I.T. MINDS!!
What? So ok there are 70 not 72 partners as you call them, rather than virgins, in heaven for a shahid... But, you are telling us they are male as well as female?
Wow! That is shocking.
What about the way that sharia executes homosexuals?
LMAO actually made a good point. Is this where you believe all of those executed gay men end up? Of course, really, why are you making any noise on this silly board? What does it have to do with you?
What? So ok there are 70 not 72 partners as you call them, rather than virgins, in heaven for a shahid... But, you are telling us they are male as well as female?
Wow! That is shocking.
What about the way that shria executes homosexuals?
LMAO actually made a good point. Is this where you believe all of those executed gay men end up? Of course, really, why are you making any noise on this silly board? What does it have to do with you?
You are one of the largest Muslim propagandists on this board. Of course you approve if a Jewish woman flies in the face of traditional Judaism.
Dear Rachel Kahane,
Observant women would never wear a man's garment. I do not disapprove of you wishing to wear a talit. I do strongly disapprove at your gall for calling yourself Observant and making remarks about Orthodoxy. If you actually wore a tallit to the Kotel, what were you thinking? How could you be so rude? A man might argue he has the right to wear a dress, but doing so there is only being pejorative.
There are dozens of articles about everyone else...
I know that some people hate Jews so much they can't help "sharing" their views. Did a Zionist agent put a gun to your head and force you to read this? Really, you *can* go elsewhere. This discussion has nothing to do with a little putz like you at all.
Well, at least the above is good for a small laugh. Jews, alway screaming and going to court about equality for themselves, DON'T PRACTICE IT IN THEIR OWN RELIGION!
Besides that small smile, is there anybody who gives a Rat's A about the fringes?
GOSH, what a treat to read the 94th story about Jewish navel gazing in the WAPO this week.
What's going on?
Undoubtedly some campaign or other going on, including several holocaust stories (from 60 years ago!) Need to be written right NOW. Watch out below, something's coming.
Well, at least the above is good for a small laugh. Jews, alway screaming and going to court about equality for themselves, DON'T PRACTICE IT IN THEIR OWN RELIGION!
Besides that small smile, is there anybody who gives a Rat's A about the fringes?
GOSH, what a treat to read the 94th story about Jewish navel gazing in the WAPO this week.
What's going on?
Undoubtedly some campaign or other going on, including several holocaust stories (from 60 years ago!) Need to be written right NOW. Watch out below, something's coming.
At least there's a GOOD LAUGH HERE, in this94th navel gazing jewish story this week in the WAPO
Jews, always screamng and whining or going to court to make everyone else avoid any descrimination about themselves, DON"T PRACTICE IT in their own religion.
Other than that small smile, does anyone give a rat's A about her fringes?
Nothing but stories about Jews lately. What's going on? OBVIOUSLY some campaign of some kind.
Watch out.
It’s good to see for a while your own face in the mirror before vomiting lies.
As a beginner you can start looking at your exemplary disrespectful and hateful twisted replies towards other billions of believers.
Though useless but just for a hint and sake of knowledge word "Hoor" is used in Quran for human partner in Heavens both for male and female. It never meant SPECIFICALLY FEMALE FOR MALES ANY WHERE.
And for males 'Sahi Hadith' tells there will be 70 partners. ARE YOU JELOUS???? At least females in Heavens are or will be not, as they will also get there rightfully desired partners!!!
I defy you to tell me which of my statements was false.
While we are at it, when a Shahid gets his 72 virgins, if he uses one, does he get a new virgin the next day, or does the used virgin grow her hymen back?
Koranimals - that is one of the more fun responses to all of the vile slurs coming from Muslims here I have seen...
Koranimal: A human being degraded to an unthinking animal state of barbarity by the supposedly "holy" Koran - a pack of lies written by a savage, evil, land pirate who married a nine year old and raped women at Khaibar.
You make a number of statements that I would like very much to address. I too am enjoying the discussion. If I turn to up and up debate in the following, please, take it in an academic rather than a strident tone.
First off you are trying to argue Halacha, and then you say:
"There's a difference between writing the law (active) and making sure your children understand it (passive). If it strikes you as "unfair" to point out that women are expected to live according to standards they did not actively take part in creating, then I'm not sure what I can say."
If you believe in Halacha, then you believe that the Law, both Oral and Written came from Hashem. In other words, men did not write it either. If you believe in the Law, but do not like some part of it, then take your complaint to the Boss. If you do not, then it is really hypocritical to try to use Halachic arguments to posit the view that you desire. So yes, I find you saying this to be very unfair.
You also say:
"It sounds like you're implying that women's private practice is somehow unpleasant for us, and that we don't have the patience to do things that "take a lot of time." I'm going to give ya the benefit of a doubt, though."
Thank for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I was actually making a different point. My point is, that this article is very keen on pointing out that women who wear a Tallit are making a statement. It is not a particularly profound statement in my opinion. I am responding to the hypocricy of trying to make it sound like this is a spiritual statement. My argument is, simply put, if there was a purely spiritual motivation, she would clamor to bind Teffilin. The problem with that for her, is that it would not make the same public "statement."
You say:
"The less priviliged party tries to address a grievance, only to have the priviliged party respond by pointing out how happy the other should be with the status quo. It's like we're constantly being handed consolation prizes."
Sometimes there is no legitimate grievance. The roles of women in Judaism are not consolation prizes. The reason I keep pointing out what the Tradition has to say about Jewish womanhood is to make that very point.
Going back when you offered a trade about studying the Shimona Esrei in the original form but Davening the other way, who are you kidding? Since when do most Conservative or Reform Jews even learn Hebrew, let alone get to a place where they can study Gematria, let alone read a page of Talmud or read the commentaries? I do not wish to imply that *all* Reform and Conservative Jews are ignorant of these things, but don't kid a kidder.
Now on to the main question.
Observant women do *not* wear a Tallit. What does that fact indicate to you about the status of the Halacha? Again if you do not believe in the Halacha that is fine, you are still a good person, but don't go trying to make an halachic argument. That is rude.
Now seriously this is why it is case closed. Wether or not there is debate about the origins of the custom, it has become custom to wear a tallit for MEN and it is seen as a man's garment. If you look at the laws about cross dressing, you will find that the notion applies to the standards of a community at large. In other words, an American Jewish man wearing a skirt is cross dressing. However, a Scottish Jewish man could wear a kilt.
That said, there is NO community standard that considers a tallit feminine garb. Otherwise, in your own words, a woman wearing one would not be "new and different." Thus if a woman wears one, she is cross dressing. There is not lot of room here.
I have never seen a Rashi that permits women to wear a tallit. However, I do not claim to know all of his commentaries by heart. I will look into that. In any case, even if he did allow it, the point is moot. Why is it moot? Because we do not live in Medieval France. In the modern world, the tallit has become men's clothing (and certainly has been for hundreds of years) and the community standard clause of the cross dressing kicks in.
I have a question for you as a non-Muslim. Actually several...
How is it that you murder innocent people up all the time, murder each other all the time, riot all the time (like in Paris or over teddy bears or over cartoons) make head chop videos - for that matter consider head chopping to be a public spectacle, abuse women (no particular rights, rape victims get lashes, scraping out clitori), have a pathological fear of feminine expression or sexuality, execute homosexuals and generally remind the world that you will blow up at the drop of a hat, AND you expect us to believe that you are somehow nice, peaceful people?
Islam recognizes no other religious group as having any equal status in society. Why should we be tolerant of you, if you are not tolerant of us?
You actually have the stones to tell people that Muslim women have rights? Excuse me? Do Muslims really think that non-Muslims are that stupid?
Finally, why are you writing about Hijabs here? What makes you think anyone here gives a damn about your views of imposing Sharia on the rest of us. I mean, the day it looks like America will impose your barbaric, backwards and vile laws - spewed by an illiterate non-prophet, Americans will take to the streets. That's right I just called Mohammed an illiterate, vile non-prophet, what do you think about freedom of speech now?
A tallit is a Jewish thing and a Man's thing. It is not an implement of sexual repression on women.
So again, why are you here?
First of all, thank you for engaging in this conversation. I'm finding it interesting and educational. It's spurred me to do some research I wouldn't have made the time for otherwise.
Unfortunately, my only available resource at the moment is the Internet, and the best source I can find offhand is Wikipedia, which has a nice article on Tallit. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it, and if you know any good sites, I'd love to have them.
Most of the other pages I've looked at repeat what that page says, that the authorities don't agree on whether women are permitted to wear tallit. Earlier authorities tend to say yes, later ones no, which goes back to what I was saying about constructed social realities.
I'll have to wait till I get home to look at the Hebrew itself, but the English translations I've read of the section where the children of Israel are commanded to wear tzitzit on the corners of their garments--that section does not seem to indicate only the men should do this. Much later, women were exempted from time-sensitive mitzvot, but that aside, this section doesn't sell me on the "it's only for men" interpretation.
On Jewish mothers as teachers: I would be more impressed if we could cite extensive collaboration between men and women scholars in the composition of the Tradition. There's a difference between writing the law (active) and making sure your children understand it (passive). If it strikes you as "unfair" to point out that women are expected to live according to standards they did not actively take part in creating, then I'm not sure what I can say.
>>>there is a Torah prohibition against cross dressing. A tallit is a man's garment. It always has been. Given the injunction, there is no wiggle room for halachic "interpretation.">>Could that be because it is something done privately and takes a lot of time, rather than something to make a statement in schul about?<<<
It sounds like you're implying that women's private practice is somehow unpleasant for us, and that we don't have the patience to do things that "take a lot of time." I'm going to give ya the benefit of a doubt, though.
When a man wears tallit in shul, does he do so to "make a statement"? No, he doesn't. But a woman wearing tallit in shul makes a statement whether she wants to or not, simply because it's new and unusual. We're drawn to notice what's different, while the normal goes totally under the radar.
So could it be that tallit isn't such an issue because women actually are practicing it in private, and thus don't have to contend with others making a tzimmis over their personal religious observance?
It's clear that you're not a fellow from the Middle Ages. ;) One thing that doesn't help, though--and I hope you don't mind me pointing it out--is the care you've taken to bring up examples of how much women are valued in Jewish tradition. In a discussion about women and tallit, you've brought up Eshet Chayil, mothers as valuable teachers, inclusion in the People through the mother's line, and women as surgeons and physicists. Those things are all important, but they're beside the point, and this happens so often in these discussions. The less priviliged party tries to address a grievance, only to have the priviliged party respond by pointing out how happy the other should be with the status quo. It's like we're constantly being handed consolation prizes.
Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?
Answer:
The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam
1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust
The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:
Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.
Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.
Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.
Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.
Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.
2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.
Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.
Hijaab for men
People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah Noor:
"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]
The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.
Hijaab for women.
The next verse of Surah Noor, says:
" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]
3. Six criteria for Hijaab.
According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:
Extent:
The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’.
All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.
The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.
The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.
The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.
The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.
The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.
4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things
Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.
5. Hijaab prevents molestation
The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:
"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]
The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.
6. Example of twin sisters
Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.
7. Capital punishment for the rapists
Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?
8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women
Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.
9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape
United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.
Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?
10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes
Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.
I find your response very interesting. Jewish mothers have been the primary keepers and teachers of the Tradition for thousands of years. Your comment about "Why should we get to interpret our own tradition when it's so clear, as in the examples you gave, that traditional Judaism honors and respects women?" strikes me as a little unfair.
First off, if you wish to make this an Halachic dispute, there is a Torah prohibition against cross dressing. A tallit is a man's garment. It always has been. Given the injunction, there is no wiggle room for halachic "interpretation." As far as the Law goes, it is case closed before even getting on the docket. You may not like that, but, that is another discussion and truly, as far as the Law goes, there really is no room for the argument you are making.
While we are at it, I find this whole debate to be a little specious. If I were a Jewish woman who desperately wanted to take a male mitzvah because I thought that the Tradition did not have enough for me to connect to, I would clamor to bind Teffillin.
Teffillin is a much, much bigger deal halachically. There is vastly more symbolism. Yet, we do not hear women clamoring to do this mitzvah... Could that be because it is something done privately and takes a lot of time, rather than something to make a statement in schul about?
As to the keen absence that some Jewish women felt was in the Shimona Esrei, again, men could argue that inclusion in the People should pass by the male line. Yet it does not. He may be the G-d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, but Issac and Jacob would not be Jews in the first place if not for Sarah and Rivkah who clearly believed in that same G-d.
I really do respect the absence that some women felt there. I am not some fellow from the Middle Ages. However, I strongly believe that this is barking up the wrong tree.
I'd say if it's anything, Frenda, it's about certain people not playing well with others, who can do nothing but denigrate other faiths in an interfaith forum when someone speaks about their cultural and religious experiences.
This is *about* religion and politics, including feminism... I suppose if she were finding something to argue about you might find it more 'important,' but I find this is a little chance to learn something new from someone else's perspective.
Actually, I think it'd possibly be an interesting topic to speak of *what* religious and ethnic garments mean, even all inevitable hijab arguments aside.
Sometimes it's the little things that make all the difference in understanding.
Pakistan is on Stolen Land that belongs to Greater iNDIA, not Arabs like Israel:
Hello HUMATES from sweet sweet SPACE-SHiP Momma /Poppa EARTH (Planet on many many many Worlds like Hear, but in varied Temperature Hue Frequecies), aka S.S. GAiA, S.S. GEOiD, S.S. TELLUSng something!
Pakistan is on Stolen Land that belongs to Greater iNDIA, not Arabs like Israel:
Important" PAKiSATAN, aka PAKISTAN(s) [west & East] are on STOLEN-LAND from Sweet iNDIA, the place where "i" left my Hat but not me Heart!
Please Do not DENY that giant PAKISTAN , un-like ancient tiny ISRAEL, was 'stolen' under Islamic [Religious, more than political] Pretext's via "AL TAQIYAH" aka 1st iSLAMIC SHARIA to conquer. And 2nd "AL TAQIYA" is to rule the Tribes therein & therefrom!
VOTE:
NO' Sharia!
NO Hallakha!
NO Caste System(s)!
NO Rule By BiBLE, GiTA, QURAN!
NO Theocracy!
No Monarchi!
NO Putting Down Woman Anywhere!
MORE Protection For Kids!
iMAGINE; "The RELiGiON OF EVERYTHING" before the SCiENCE OF EVERYTHING?? Ya Ya! SO gladly sayth,
"Good Riddence 'Old Time religion',
Good Bye MECCA!
Good Bye JERUSALEM!
Good Bye VATICAN/CANTURBERY!
Good Bye NEPAL/TIBET!
Good Bye ARMISTAR!
Good Bye HELLENICS!
Good Bye CAVE/DESERT//JUNGLE/ISLAND “BiO-MENTALiTY!”
AND say instead,
"HELLO , Me Sweet sweet, Made in U.S.A. O.ne U.niversal R.eligion SYSTEM! Hello
1) Hello "MORMON".
2) Hello "TRANSFiNiTY". and
3) Hello "COURSE IN MiRiCLES"! That's All folks!
Imagine: ALL Made in Sweet sweet A*M*E*R*i*C*A! [Not Imported or imitation] All else will be Abolished & Illegalized & have ALL, EVERY & ANY Governmental "Privilages" removed like MIKE HUCKABEES CHURCH 1st via their ECLATi Given (not their God Given) I.R.S. 'Tax-Exempt-Status's' and the rest will also tumble Down down down untill their is no-more , competing, "Pre-Apocalyptic" [non-DYNAMIC genuine Faith, but STATIC Pre-Apocalyptic as if Religions] SYSTEM(s) are gone in +/- 250 Years!
Important. All King James Version Bibles [They are an ENGLISH-CROWN iMPORT, not made in AMERICA!] shopuld be Embargo'd on and or Illegalized or Raise , like the 'Boston Tea Party' the 'Importation Levy' therefrom!
Please see this 'WiKi' Crown-Copy Monopoly linko, on the 'KJV', that is Governmentally Enforced via the [un] holy "DRUNKINN RACIST NOAH STORY(s)" , aka "The Most EViLizing Story ever Told etc.!!!
HARK! Besides the HUMATE "TETRA-NEEDS" (Food, Shelter, LOVE, Clothes) of Humans , but in case or issues of religion , that they Only need the
1) "Book of MORMON", and or
2) "Book Of TRANSFiNiTY", and or the
3) "Book of "aCOURSE iN MiRiCLES" .
Hello World, We HUMATES speak American, not English, like them Bloody Chaps from the ROMAN CATHOLIC EMPIRE , includes the ISLAMIC epires, JEWISH empires, HINDU & BUDDHISTS empires too, et al!! And We HUMATES do not need the [un] likes of his "FREUDIAN SLIPO Of Genuines Prophecy's" " remarks like ANGLICAL Bishop Mr. Williams, the POPE, Armageddon Lover John HAGEE of America (want to see USA drop a ATOMIC WEAPON on IRAN et al) AND
also scrupulous characters, not Biblical wannabe Characters like Hagge's Co-Parner in Crime & Grime,
Mr. Anti-I.R.S. big mouth 'Minister Of Everything" Mr. Mike wannabe HUCKABEE (who wants to Christianize USA ) or
that other Bible-Bollixer who wanted to have President CHAVEZ of Venezualia ASSASSINATED, not to mention preditor PEDAPHILE-PRIESTS or
them Televangelical immortal Theives like Husband & Wife, Jim & Tammy BAKKER of "PTL", & their JESSICA HAHN Preacher 'Gang Rape Story'. Please paste her name in Google & you will see what "i" am talking about!
Example:
Yes MU-HAM-MAD was or is the Last Chosen 'Prophet' in the Middle-East & for near East Only, and Never was He or him the 'prophet' of AMERICA! Maybe overseas, but never in Sweet sweet U.S.A.!
Soo, very Soon, the 'Healing Of Religious Torn potential-Good-Humates (aka Humans) & their competing Natopns & Global Peace is comming sooner than expected!!!!
VOTE: Abolish ALL "iMPORTED" [Not-Made or Prophecied in Sweet Sweet U.S.A.) Pre-Apocalyptic 'Cottage-Religions" in U.S. of A., not Industry's!!
VOTE: DEPORT ALL, Not-Made-IN-A*M*E*R*i*C*A, iMPORTED Religions, Not MEXICANS!
INstead Unite MEXICO w/U.S.A for an Additional 10 States!!! As a Matter of fact, VOTE to Merge & Absorb All AMERICA upto & No Further than PANAMMA, ironically John McCAINS "Birth Place!
Trivia: Did ye knowth that Senator , wanabe Prez John McCain is a 'Dual Citizen of Panama & USA?
PS: Did you also know that John McCain & His Wife , are ALCOHOL Pushers & have lots of Blood on their hand for many Highway Car Crashes due to their Alchol Monopoly Biz in ARIZONA!?????
Please see these linko's on Cindy Lou Hensley the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980.
http://www .astronomy2009.org/////
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA USA!!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !!
PEACE,PAZ,SALAAM,SHOLOM.....__________________ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:
I don't believe I wrote that there are no gender roles--only that what roles we have are social constructions. And neither one of us has claimed women are in any way inferior, so I'm not sure why you're reassuring me of the Jewish tradition of valuing women.
On the subject of tallit, I didn't say that women originally performed this mitzvah as well as men. But it begs the question: did they, at one point? Could they? Who is being addressed by the commandment itself? What in the text indicates it's a commandment meant only for men? What exactly is it about wearing tallit that is _in itself_ a masculine act?
My answer is that it's not in itself a gendered act. Without the constructed social reality that post-dates the Torah and biblical times, wearing tallit is simply the fulfillment of a commandment that was transmitted without regard to the gender of those it was given to.
Does that apply to all commandments? No. But it does to this one. I'm not arguing that prescribed gender roles are necessarily sexist. They might be, and they might not. Either way, that's a discussion that needs to take place. Nobody's throwing the baby out with the bath water by trying to insert or reclaim the responsibility to fulfill certain mitzvot. If it can be shown halakhically that women are not prohibited and are even commanded to wear tallit, then how is it fair to deny them that obligation on the basis of being uncomfortable with the feminist movement in Judaism as a whole?
What I'm saying is, we need to consider these things on a case by case basis. Disagreeing with the gist of feminism overall is a poor reason to disagree with an individual feminist act. The two are not the same.
As for the Sh'moneh Esrei, how about a compromise? We study its history and all the complex meanings contained within the original, but we still daven it with the inclusion of the matriarchs. That way, we're learned _and_ represented. But we could bat that back and forth for days and never get anywhere. The matriarchs were added to the prayer because women felt a keen absence without them. That is a valid--extremely valid--concern. Women feel invisible, and thus excluded. That gets downplayed because--hey! what do we women know? Why should we get to interpret our own tradition when it's so clear, as in the examples you gave, that traditional Judaism honors and respects women?
I think the issue comes with accepting that there are gender roles in the first place. Of course, women are just as smart and talented as men. Of course women make great physicists and surgeons too.
However, there are differences (different does not equal better or worse) between the sexes and it strikes me as opposed to reality to try to establish as a matter of dogma that there should be no differences.
If you look at Aishet Chayil, the woman of valor, that King David was describing as the paragon of Jewish womanhood is hardly a wallflower. She has strong arms, wisdom comes from her lips, she is good at business, she cares for the poor and her family never suffers from want because she is always there being the "modern woman who does it all." Yet, this psalm, sang every Shabbos to honor the women present, was written almost 3000 years ago. How many meek, weak willed Jewish women do you know? There are powerful cultural reasons for why our women have always been so strong.
The author very clearly states how she is making a feminist statement when she wears a tallit. I am woman hear me pray... My point is that this is a missplaced feminism. The question comes to accepting that men and women have different roles sometimes.
You are incorrect that wearing a talit was originally a mitzvah that both genders shared. The commandment to put fringes on your garment was always considered a male Mitzvah. If not, why do Orthodox women *not* have fringes on their skirts?
For whatever long set of reasons - and there actually are long reasons for it, that favor women as being inherently *more* spiritual than men, the talit is a boy thing.
I am not saying that the world will end if Jewish women wear a tallit. I am saying that in the mad dogmatic rush to do anything that boys do too, they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are many girl mitzvot too - and they are good things. There is nothing wrong with telling young Jewish women that it is OK to not run around showing skin everywhere. G-d forbid, a man love her for her mind and spirit as well as her body. There is nothing wrong with making a strong Jewish home. There is no sin in focusing on the mitzvot that make Jewish mothers into better Jewish instructors of the young. The Tradition has always understood the primary role of the mother as the primary teacher. When the Tradition teaches that the People are saved in the merit of the righteous women, it is talking about a whole battery of girl things that rather than being dogmatically homogenized should rather be praised.
A prime example of my point about learning more about Judaism before deciding it should be changed comes with the trend in Conservative and Reform synagogues to alter the Shimona Esrei to include the names of the Matriarchs. Apparently, the line about Him being the G-d of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was seen by some women as a slight to women. So they add the language of the naming the Matriarchs too.
So what is it that they threw out when they did this? For one, they destroyed the poetry of the Hebrew. It took the Sanhedrin, the greatest sages of their day, years to compose this prayer. Every word has meaning, every letter has *mathematical* meaning. Now the typical Conservative Jew does not know Hebrew, let alone Gematria, but, if you take it out without even caring it is there because of modern dogma, you insure that no future generation learns that meaning either.
That is a tragedy. If she really wants to be woman, and roar in schul, she could take the time to learn the heritage better. The Tradition has always made room for strong intelligent women.
I think the issue comes with accepting that there are gender roles in the first place. Of course, women are just as smart and talented as men. Of course women make great physicists and surgeons too.
However, there are differences (different does not equal better or worse) between the sexes and it strikes me as opposed to reality to try to establish as a matter of dogma that there should be no differences.
If you look at Aishet Chayil, the woman of valor, that King David was describing as the paragon of Jewish womanhood is hardly a wallflower. She has strong arms, wisdom comes from her lips, she is good at business, she cares for the poor and her family never suffers from want because she is always there being the "modern woman who does it all." Yet, this psalm, sang every Shabbos to honor the women present, was written almost 3000 years ago. How many meek, weak willed Jewish women do you know? There are powerful cultural reasons for why our women have always been so strong.
The author very clear states how she is making a feminist statement when she wears a tallit. I am woman hear me pray... My point is that this is a missplaced feminism. The question comes to accepting that men and women have different roles sometimes.
You are incorrect that wearing a talit was originally a mitzvah that both genders shared. The commandment to put fringes on your garment was always considered a male Mitzvah. If not, why do Orthodox women *not* have fringes on their skirts?
For whatever long set of reasons - and there actually are long reasons for it, that favor women as being inherently *more* spiritual than men, the talit is a boy thing.
I am not saying that the world will end if Jewish women wear a tallit. I am saying that in the mad dogmatic rush to do anything that boys do too, they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are many girl mitzvot too - and they are good things. There is nothing wrong with telling young Jewish women that it is OK to not run around showing skin everywhere. G-d forbid, a man love her for her mind and spirit as well as her body. There is nothing wrong with making a strong Jewish home. There is no sin in focusing on the mitzvot that make Jewish mothers into better Jewish instructors of the young. The Tradition has always understood the primary role of the mother as the primary teacher. When the Tradition teaches that the People are saved in the merit of the righteous women, it is talking about a whole battery of girl things that rather than being dogmatically homogenized should rather be praised.
A prime example of my point about learning more about Judaism before deciding it should be changed comes with the trend in Conservative and Reform synagogues to alter the Shimona Esrei to include the names of the Matriarchs. Apparently, the line about Him being the G-d of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was seen by some women as a slight to women. So they add the language of the naming the Matriarchs too.
So what is it that they threw out when they did this? For one, they destroyed the poetry of the Hebrew. It took the Sanhedrin, the greatest sages of their day, years to compose this prayer. Every word has meaning, every letter has *mathematical* meaning. Now the typical Conservative Jew does not know Hebrew, let alone Gematria, but, if you take it out without even caring it is there because of modern dogma, you insure that no future generation learns that meaning either.
That is a tragedy. If she really wants to be woman, and roar in schul, she could take the time to learn the heritage better. The Tradition has always made room for strong intelligent women.
I was very moved by your story, Ruth, and I know that it is the story shared by many of us, all women "of a certain age" - particularly in the Conservative movement. For several years after I began wearing my own tallit (which, incidentally, served as our chuppah 27 years ago, I would delicately ask each time we would attend Shabbat services elsewhere whether I would "feel comfortable" wearing my tallit. I was doing that woman thing - not wanting to offend by asserting my own faith and rights - something which did not carry over into the other parts of my life. It's my tallit and I'm wearing it.
Interestingly, I have a 15 year old daughter for whom this is not a struggle, and who has not worn her tallit regularly since her bat mitzvah. Go figure!!!!
I don't think the OP meant to imply that a woman's prayers are lesser than a man's. Rather, that the obligation to wear tallit was not given only to men in the first place.
The option not to wear it became, over time, an obligation not to wear it, because wearing the tallit and not wearing it became an expression of gender. Wearing it is considered a male act; when a woman wears it, she performs a transgressive act, blurring the distinctions between what's understood as masculine and feminine, and undermining the definition of maleness.
The thing is, it really doesn't have to. If a woman is not pressed or prevented by her family obligations--if she has the time and desire to walk into temple with her family, stand next to her husband and say the blessing over her own tallit, then why shouldn't she? She's following a commandment in love, not crossdressing or stealing male power. G-d commands us to wear tallit in order to remember His commandments, not to define our gender identity.
As for Shabbos candles, that analogy actually does make me step back and see the issue from your perspective. It's _weird_ to think of a husband lighting the candles. Honestly, my gut reaction is to think of such a thing as a seizure of my right to perform the mitzvah, as though this hypothetical husband were stealing my role. It even makes me rethink my perception of his masculinity. It just goes to show how deeply gender expression is rooted in our minds. And no, I don't think I would like it if my (still hypothetical) husband started lighting the candles instead of me--but:
1) wearing tallit is something both men and women can do together. When a woman wears it, she doesn't take away men's right to wear it too; and
2) if my husband believed that lighting Shabbos candles would deepen his connection to G-d, Torah, tradition, etc. and enrich his spiritual life, then I would only encourage him to embrace that belief. In fact, the idea of us lighting one candle each, and saying the blessing together.... Well, I can only hope for a marriage that is such a partnership.
I respect what you had to say about wanting to wear a tallit, but, I must ask, why does taking a man's mitzvah appeal to you so much?
No where in Judaism does it say that a woman's prayers are lesser than a man's. In fact, quite the opposite is given again and again in the tradition, starting with G-d himself telling Abraham to listen to Sarah. Those Medieval rabbaim you disparage were actually making a statement about the greater spirituality of women and the need for men to have rituals as an added focus.
Perhaps before you go trying to change Judaism, you should perhaps learn some more about it.
As a man, I see the beauty of lighting Shabbos candles. I do not feel the need to claim it as a man's mitzvah however. I do not feel less of a man because this is traditionally a woman's mitzva.
A tallit is nothing like a Hijab. It never was nor will it ever be. If someone points this out to you in mild tones you resort to using the unbelievably insulting term askenNAZI. That is beyond the pale.
You know nothing of Judaism or history, only how to be ignorant and insulting while spewing vile propaganda. I suppose that makes you a KORANIMAL.
Adam was a Muslim(?)(He was a myth).All the *Jewish* Prophets were Muslims(?).Jesus was a Muslim(!)
Is this *civilised exchange of views* ?
In that case,all Jews are muslims and all christians are muslims as well.
*any human who submits to the Laws of God*
Which God ? Zeus was a God,Amon-Ra was a God.An,Teshup,Jupiter were also Gods such as many others(dont forget Goddess,perhaps Janet is a muslim)
Besides,muslim believes in Allah,not God of Jesus(Jesus Christ was Son of God and islam curses trinity-although it doesnt know what Trinity is-and islam curses Jews)
Islam is the bad imitation of Judaism.Do you know *Moon God* ?
*Muslims are allowed to marry Jewish and Christians women* No,wrong.Islam strongly forbids to marry with non-muslim women 2.221
*People of Book* is one of many contrdictions in islam and it doesnt mean anything.
Head covering,whatever it names in Religion or Cults,had been a stone age custom,nothing else.
Yes,even in this days,a City in southern Austria has forbidden to build mosque and minaret.
thanks ms. marcus for sharing and giving us an education too-
i find it interesting that ms. kahan found resistance to her own wearing of the tallit from the women and not the men.
ive had the same experience as a muslim woman- the disturbance of the comfortable status qup seems to threaten, i imagine- those whose positions in society are more vulenrable to a degree-
i applaud your courage in your religious expression, and especially teaching your daughters to consider it as natural as life itself to wear it comfortably and their daughters will not even be able to imagine your own (initial) discomfort!
Maybe you could start a tradition like the Hawaiians, in which women teach keikis (children) to make their own hula regalia. It's so delightful to watch grandmothers, mothers, teens and toddlers dancing together.
You would have a similar tradition to pass down with the tallit.
Unfortunately, Judaism is not your religion: Feminism is.
There is PLENTY of room for expression as a Jewish woman within the framework of traditional Judaism. You would be well-advised to explore that instead of going out to look for things that are not your obligation.
Bravo for you Ms. Marcus. Its time women do as they wish. What you are doing is good for Judaism. It needs to pushed into accepting women as full humans with equal rights. Why they have been denied to women is something that is inexplicable, and inexcusable. Its a holdover from days of yore when men made the rules; they are not god-given, although some would have them believe it to be so. Since all Jewish males have come from Jewish mothers, how then could women be inferior? How could inferior beings produce superior ones? Next step is to read the torah. The step after is to abrogate all the sexist,outdated and abhorrent practices in halachic law that have put women into inferior positions.
**When christians were wearing a crucifix,or a medallion of the *Virgin Mary*,and Jews a Kippa,a star of David,NOBODY found anything wrong**
Yes,because,all of them are not symbols of Subjugation and Segregation.
**Only when Muslims wanted just to be Muslims(?)(!)(is the headscarf piller of islam),all hell broke loose**
Yes,because,the headscarf is the mark of Degradation and Enslavement,because islam rejects *women rights*.
Because,the State and Society should be governed according to Human Rights,*Men-Women equality* and Contemporary Values,not *I divorce you* order and the Desert Cult.
All Comments (55)
Dear Hmmm,
Sorry for the delay in responding; it's a busy time of the week for me. I'm still enjoying the discussion, and could only think of taking it and responding in academic tone.
First of all, I think there might be some confusion in terminology. It's possible I used "halacha" in the wrong context originally; if so, I apologize for sending the conversation down a confusing path. To be sure, when I said:
"There's a difference between writing the law (active) and making sure your children understand it (passive). If it strikes you as "unfair" to point out that women are expected to live according to standards they did not actively take part in creating, then I'm not sure what I can say."
(Your response, for easy reference: "If you believe in Halacha, then you believe that the Law, both Oral and Written came from Hashem. In other words, men did not write it either. If you believe in the Law, but do not like some part of it, then take your complaint to the Boss. If you do not, then it is really hypocritical to try to use Halachic arguments to posit the view that you desire. So yes, I find you saying this to be very unfair.")
I was referring not to Torah but to the body of interpretive work that was developed by scholars up to the present day. My point was that with a few exceptions, most of that interpretive work has been done by men. Their interpretations became community standards because they were accepted and enforced (or not) by the men and women living in their communities. Which, as I said, resulted in a system in which women obeyed and transmitted community standards that they did not take part in creating.
An analogy is women's suffrage. When women did not have the vote, they were still expected to live under the legal system of the U.S., even though elected officials had no incentive to consider their needs when legislating. The people who put officials and kept them in office were men, and those were the people whose interests were protected. The interests of women could only truly be visible--let alone represented and safeguarded--after women themselves became an electorate, and politicians had to take their perspectives and rights into account.
I stand by my opinion that you can't have true equality without equal representation in the decision-making process.
And to clarify from the following exchange:
(Hmmm) "Teffillin is a much, much bigger deal halachically. There is vastly more symbolism. Yet, we do not hear women clamoring to do this mitzvah... Could that be because it is something done privately and takes a lot of time, rather than something to make a statement in schul about?"
(Rachel) "It sounds like you're implying that women's private practice is somehow unpleasant for us, and that we don't have the patience to do things that "take a lot of time." I'm going to give ya the benefit of a doubt, though."
(Hmmm) "Thank for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I was actually making a different point."
I know you were making a different point. I was addressing the sexist attitude that I read in your statement.
As I said before, half the reason a "statement" is made when a woman wears tallit is that others are pointing at her and making comments (figuratively). She does it in public, therefore it's a public spectacle. She's caught in a no-win situation. She wants to fulfill the mitzvah of wearing tzitzit (which in her movement may be "legal"). She can choose to sublimate her spiritual desire to do so (and that reeks of oppression) or she can wear her tallit and have everyone think she's ostentatious and uppity.
Whereas, if she takes some time to herself at home and lays tefillin, she's doing so invisibly, and there's no controversy.
Moving on:
(Rachel) "One thing that doesn't help, though--and I hope you don't mind me pointing it out--is the care you've taken to bring up examples of how much women are valued in Jewish tradition. In a discussion about women and tallit, you've brought up Eshet Chayil, mothers as valuable teachers, inclusion in the People through the mother's line, and women as surgeons and physicists. Those things are all important, but they're beside the point, and this happens so often in these discussions. The less priviliged party tries to address a grievance, only to have the priviliged party respond by pointing out how happy the other should be with the status quo. It's like we're constantly being handed consolation prizes.
"
(Hmmm) "Sometimes there is no legitimate grievance. The roles of women in Judaism are not consolation prizes. The reason I keep pointing out what the Tradition has to say about Jewish womanhood is to make that very point."
No, the roles of women in Judaism are not consolation prizes, and I value them highly. But to be a woman trying to have a discussion about tallit and to have a man counter by pointing out that "...Issac and Jacob would not be Jews in the first place if not for Sarah and Rivkah"--it's beside the point. So is Eshet Chayil. So is anything else that has to do with women's high value in Judaism but that doesn't have to do with the question of tallit.
It basically comes down to your own words: "Sometimes there is no legitimate grievance." I'm sorry, but only the aggrieved can make that judgment. In other words, it is not for a priviliged party to tell the non-priviliged one what she has the right to be aggrieved over. It's not a part of his experience, so he can't possibly know. Even if he later became her ally after a lot of listening and attempts at understanding, he still wouldn't _know_ it the way she does.
On the subject of women wearing tallit, I'm really feeling that we're going to have to agree to disagree. To respond to what you said, though: If Rashi allowed it in Medieval Spain (and others elsewhere), then there is indeed a legal interpretation allowing it. As you said yourself, community standards have changed. But they're not the same everywhere. The Reform and Conservative movements allow it, so in those communities, it's not crossdressing. And given the fact that community standards do change, if in some hypothetical situation, a significant number of observant women decided they did want to change and were backed up by sound reasoning, then I would hope they would be empowered to do so. (That said, I wouldn't dream of telling any community except my own that they _should_ change their standards. If it's going to happen, it should happen from within and by the consent of its own members, otherwise change is meaningless. I can be supportive in spirit or if asked for help, but otherwise, it's none of my business and I have no wish to interfere.)
February 21, 2008 1:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2008 01:05
Ohhhh and one more thing Moody....
You are the most fun Koranimal of the lot!
February 19, 2008 12:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 19, 2008 00:19
Moody, are you felling a little moody? Not feeling fresh?
I remember you claiming to be a giant! You really are over-compensating for something! Now you are really, upset because you pointed out that the heavenly sexual slaves of the shahids also come in male form, and we picked up on the homo-erotic nature of that.
Such a strong response from you! A truly straight man is generally secure enough in his sexuality to not flip out like that... Do you maybe harbor some sinful thoughts about men?
You poor man, come out of the closet! In America, no one will stone you to death for expressing your feelings towards another man. Sure, you will have to tone down all the "murder the infidel language" but I am sure there is a butch out there who can bring out the "inner you." You will feel so liberated and then maybe you will loose all of this rage once butch gives you the thing you are craving!
February 19, 2008 12:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 19, 2008 00:16
LMAO & JOE,
It is really difficult to argue with demented homo creamy yellowish in the middle of male buttock stuck brains!
Hoor are heavenly creatures for both male and female and not the earthly humans, perfectly made for the rewarded ones.
And since the Revealer curse the nation of Prophet Lot (Homo's)and explained the righteous ways of living on earth therefore Muslims only correlate this way of living with what could be in the heavens which is never mentioned in DETAIL in Quran, that for example, how many for women. We Muslims prefer not to degrade/humiliate our mothers, wife’s, daughters and sisters and differentiate between w.h.o.r.e.s. and honorable women’s. We PREFER to believe what is not mentioned only Allah knows best. (And the degraded ones are who do it to them selves...smell so bad like vomit when they talk).
But 'Sahi Hadit' mentioned some time 70 or 72 'Hoors' for Heaven Rewarded men.
So again why are you jealous? Atleast females in the heavens are or will be not, as they are also rightfully rewarded what they desire and deserve.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR FILTHY PERVERTED TYPE FULL OF S.H.I.T. MINDS!!
February 18, 2008 11:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 23:34
Moody
What? So ok there are 70 not 72 partners as you call them, rather than virgins, in heaven for a shahid... But, you are telling us they are male as well as female?
Wow! That is shocking.
What about the way that sharia executes homosexuals?
LMAO actually made a good point. Is this where you believe all of those executed gay men end up? Of course, really, why are you making any noise on this silly board? What does it have to do with you?
February 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 13:05
Moody
What? So ok there are 70 not 72 partners as you call them, rather than virgins, in heaven for a shahid... But, you are telling us they are male as well as female?
Wow! That is shocking.
What about the way that shria executes homosexuals?
LMAO actually made a good point. Is this where you believe all of those executed gay men end up? Of course, really, why are you making any noise on this silly board? What does it have to do with you?
February 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 13:03
Dear Victoria,
You are one of the largest Muslim propagandists on this board. Of course you approve if a Jewish woman flies in the face of traditional Judaism.
Dear Rachel Kahane,
Observant women would never wear a man's garment. I do not disapprove of you wishing to wear a talit. I do strongly disapprove at your gall for calling yourself Observant and making remarks about Orthodoxy. If you actually wore a tallit to the Kotel, what were you thinking? How could you be so rude? A man might argue he has the right to wear a dress, but doing so there is only being pejorative.
February 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 12:56
I think Manny is another Koranimal....
February 18, 2008 12:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 12:20
Manny,
There are dozens of articles about everyone else...
I know that some people hate Jews so much they can't help "sharing" their views. Did a Zionist agent put a gun to your head and force you to read this? Really, you *can* go elsewhere. This discussion has nothing to do with a little putz like you at all.
February 18, 2008 12:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 12:19
Moody,
I suppose that is what happens to all the gay men Sharia executes...
February 18, 2008 12:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 12:13
Moody,
So a "Hoor" is either male or female?
Thank you for clearing that up! A Shahid will have gay sex with man wh0res in heaven as well as straight sex with female wh0res!
Your religion is certainly colorful!
How much do they charge?
February 18, 2008 12:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 12:04
Well, at least the above is good for a small laugh. Jews, alway screaming and going to court about equality for themselves, DON'T PRACTICE IT IN THEIR OWN RELIGION!
Besides that small smile, is there anybody who gives a Rat's A about the fringes?
GOSH, what a treat to read the 94th story about Jewish navel gazing in the WAPO this week.
What's going on?
Undoubtedly some campaign or other going on, including several holocaust stories (from 60 years ago!) Need to be written right NOW. Watch out below, something's coming.
February 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 10:30
Well, at least the above is good for a small laugh. Jews, alway screaming and going to court about equality for themselves, DON'T PRACTICE IT IN THEIR OWN RELIGION!
Besides that small smile, is there anybody who gives a Rat's A about the fringes?
GOSH, what a treat to read the 94th story about Jewish navel gazing in the WAPO this week.
What's going on?
Undoubtedly some campaign or other going on, including several holocaust stories (from 60 years ago!) Need to be written right NOW. Watch out below, something's coming.
February 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 10:30
At least there's a GOOD LAUGH HERE, in this94th navel gazing jewish story this week in the WAPO
Jews, always screamng and whining or going to court to make everyone else avoid any descrimination about themselves, DON"T PRACTICE IT in their own religion.
Other than that small smile, does anyone give a rat's A about her fringes?
Nothing but stories about Jews lately. What's going on? OBVIOUSLY some campaign of some kind.
Watch out.
February 18, 2008 10:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 10:21
LMAO,
It’s good to see for a while your own face in the mirror before vomiting lies.
As a beginner you can start looking at your exemplary disrespectful and hateful twisted replies towards other billions of believers.
Though useless but just for a hint and sake of knowledge word "Hoor" is used in Quran for human partner in Heavens both for male and female. It never meant SPECIFICALLY FEMALE FOR MALES ANY WHERE.
And for males 'Sahi Hadith' tells there will be 70 partners. ARE YOU JELOUS???? At least females in Heavens are or will be not, as they will also get there rightfully desired partners!!!
February 18, 2008 7:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 07:33
Little Moody,
Exactly what was a lie that I asked about?
I defy you to tell me which of my statements was false.
While we are at it, when a Shahid gets his 72 virgins, if he uses one, does he get a new virgin the next day, or does the used virgin grow her hymen back?
February 18, 2008 6:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 06:56
Koranimals - that is one of the more fun responses to all of the vile slurs coming from Muslims here I have seen...
Koranimal: A human being degraded to an unthinking animal state of barbarity by the supposedly "holy" Koran - a pack of lies written by a savage, evil, land pirate who married a nine year old and raped women at Khaibar.
February 18, 2008 6:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 06:44
Dear Rachel,
You make a number of statements that I would like very much to address. I too am enjoying the discussion. If I turn to up and up debate in the following, please, take it in an academic rather than a strident tone.
First off you are trying to argue Halacha, and then you say:
"There's a difference between writing the law (active) and making sure your children understand it (passive). If it strikes you as "unfair" to point out that women are expected to live according to standards they did not actively take part in creating, then I'm not sure what I can say."
If you believe in Halacha, then you believe that the Law, both Oral and Written came from Hashem. In other words, men did not write it either. If you believe in the Law, but do not like some part of it, then take your complaint to the Boss. If you do not, then it is really hypocritical to try to use Halachic arguments to posit the view that you desire. So yes, I find you saying this to be very unfair.
You also say:
"It sounds like you're implying that women's private practice is somehow unpleasant for us, and that we don't have the patience to do things that "take a lot of time." I'm going to give ya the benefit of a doubt, though."
Thank for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I was actually making a different point. My point is, that this article is very keen on pointing out that women who wear a Tallit are making a statement. It is not a particularly profound statement in my opinion. I am responding to the hypocricy of trying to make it sound like this is a spiritual statement. My argument is, simply put, if there was a purely spiritual motivation, she would clamor to bind Teffilin. The problem with that for her, is that it would not make the same public "statement."
You say:
"The less priviliged party tries to address a grievance, only to have the priviliged party respond by pointing out how happy the other should be with the status quo. It's like we're constantly being handed consolation prizes."
Sometimes there is no legitimate grievance. The roles of women in Judaism are not consolation prizes. The reason I keep pointing out what the Tradition has to say about Jewish womanhood is to make that very point.
Going back when you offered a trade about studying the Shimona Esrei in the original form but Davening the other way, who are you kidding? Since when do most Conservative or Reform Jews even learn Hebrew, let alone get to a place where they can study Gematria, let alone read a page of Talmud or read the commentaries? I do not wish to imply that *all* Reform and Conservative Jews are ignorant of these things, but don't kid a kidder.
Now on to the main question.
Observant women do *not* wear a Tallit. What does that fact indicate to you about the status of the Halacha? Again if you do not believe in the Halacha that is fine, you are still a good person, but don't go trying to make an halachic argument. That is rude.
Now seriously this is why it is case closed. Wether or not there is debate about the origins of the custom, it has become custom to wear a tallit for MEN and it is seen as a man's garment. If you look at the laws about cross dressing, you will find that the notion applies to the standards of a community at large. In other words, an American Jewish man wearing a skirt is cross dressing. However, a Scottish Jewish man could wear a kilt.
That said, there is NO community standard that considers a tallit feminine garb. Otherwise, in your own words, a woman wearing one would not be "new and different." Thus if a woman wears one, she is cross dressing. There is not lot of room here.
I have never seen a Rashi that permits women to wear a tallit. However, I do not claim to know all of his commentaries by heart. I will look into that. In any case, even if he did allow it, the point is moot. Why is it moot? Because we do not live in Medieval France. In the modern world, the tallit has become men's clothing (and certainly has been for hundreds of years) and the community standard clause of the cross dressing kicks in.
February 18, 2008 6:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 06:33
Dear Moody,
I have a question for you as a non-Muslim. Actually several...
How is it that you murder innocent people up all the time, murder each other all the time, riot all the time (like in Paris or over teddy bears or over cartoons) make head chop videos - for that matter consider head chopping to be a public spectacle, abuse women (no particular rights, rape victims get lashes, scraping out clitori), have a pathological fear of feminine expression or sexuality, execute homosexuals and generally remind the world that you will blow up at the drop of a hat, AND you expect us to believe that you are somehow nice, peaceful people?
Islam recognizes no other religious group as having any equal status in society. Why should we be tolerant of you, if you are not tolerant of us?
You actually have the stones to tell people that Muslim women have rights? Excuse me? Do Muslims really think that non-Muslims are that stupid?
Finally, why are you writing about Hijabs here? What makes you think anyone here gives a damn about your views of imposing Sharia on the rest of us. I mean, the day it looks like America will impose your barbaric, backwards and vile laws - spewed by an illiterate non-prophet, Americans will take to the streets. That's right I just called Mohammed an illiterate, vile non-prophet, what do you think about freedom of speech now?
A tallit is a Jewish thing and a Man's thing. It is not an implement of sexual repression on women.
So again, why are you here?
February 18, 2008 5:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 05:36
Dear Hmmm,
First of all, thank you for engaging in this conversation. I'm finding it interesting and educational. It's spurred me to do some research I wouldn't have made the time for otherwise.
Unfortunately, my only available resource at the moment is the Internet, and the best source I can find offhand is Wikipedia, which has a nice article on Tallit. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it, and if you know any good sites, I'd love to have them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallit
Most of the other pages I've looked at repeat what that page says, that the authorities don't agree on whether women are permitted to wear tallit. Earlier authorities tend to say yes, later ones no, which goes back to what I was saying about constructed social realities.
I'll have to wait till I get home to look at the Hebrew itself, but the English translations I've read of the section where the children of Israel are commanded to wear tzitzit on the corners of their garments--that section does not seem to indicate only the men should do this. Much later, women were exempted from time-sensitive mitzvot, but that aside, this section doesn't sell me on the "it's only for men" interpretation.
On Jewish mothers as teachers: I would be more impressed if we could cite extensive collaboration between men and women scholars in the composition of the Tradition. There's a difference between writing the law (active) and making sure your children understand it (passive). If it strikes you as "unfair" to point out that women are expected to live according to standards they did not actively take part in creating, then I'm not sure what I can say.
>>>there is a Torah prohibition against cross dressing. A tallit is a man's garment. It always has been. Given the injunction, there is no wiggle room for halachic "interpretation.">>Could that be because it is something done privately and takes a lot of time, rather than something to make a statement in schul about?<<<
It sounds like you're implying that women's private practice is somehow unpleasant for us, and that we don't have the patience to do things that "take a lot of time." I'm going to give ya the benefit of a doubt, though.
When a man wears tallit in shul, does he do so to "make a statement"? No, he doesn't. But a woman wearing tallit in shul makes a statement whether she wants to or not, simply because it's new and unusual. We're drawn to notice what's different, while the normal goes totally under the radar.
So could it be that tallit isn't such an issue because women actually are practicing it in private, and thus don't have to contend with others making a tzimmis over their personal religious observance?
It's clear that you're not a fellow from the Middle Ages. ;) One thing that doesn't help, though--and I hope you don't mind me pointing it out--is the care you've taken to bring up examples of how much women are valued in Jewish tradition. In a discussion about women and tallit, you've brought up Eshet Chayil, mothers as valuable teachers, inclusion in the People through the mother's line, and women as surgeons and physicists. Those things are all important, but they're beside the point, and this happens so often in these discussions. The less priviliged party tries to address a grievance, only to have the priviliged party respond by pointing out how happy the other should be with the status quo. It's like we're constantly being handed consolation prizes.
February 18, 2008 1:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 01:33
All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims
HIJAAB FOR WOMEN
Question:
Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?
Answer:
The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam
1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust
The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:
Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.
Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.
Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.
Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.
Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.
2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.
Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.
Hijaab for men
People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah Noor:
"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]
The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.
Hijaab for women.
The next verse of Surah Noor, says:
" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]
3. Six criteria for Hijaab.
According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:
Extent:
The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’.
All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.
The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.
The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.
The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.
The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.
The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.
4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things
Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.
5. Hijaab prevents molestation
The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:
"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]
The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.
6. Example of twin sisters
Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.
7. Capital punishment for the rapists
Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?
8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women
Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.
9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape
United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.
Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?
10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes
Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.
February 18, 2008 1:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 01:05
OooossaaaDaisy:
Here are (2) Two items "i" fogot to attach:
1) recent "KOSHER LAWS Of NEW YORK made simple
http://oukosher.org/index.php/articles/single/2717/
AND
2) Crack-Down on Kosher-Law-Enforcement' in New York State/Cities!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6D9103EF930A35752C0A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all , THANKA SHAME!
February 18, 2008 12:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2008 00:47
Thank You Punkarino.
February 17, 2008 10:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2008 22:44
Dear Rachel,
I find your response very interesting. Jewish mothers have been the primary keepers and teachers of the Tradition for thousands of years. Your comment about "Why should we get to interpret our own tradition when it's so clear, as in the examples you gave, that traditional Judaism honors and respects women?" strikes me as a little unfair.
First off, if you wish to make this an Halachic dispute, there is a Torah prohibition against cross dressing. A tallit is a man's garment. It always has been. Given the injunction, there is no wiggle room for halachic "interpretation." As far as the Law goes, it is case closed before even getting on the docket. You may not like that, but, that is another discussion and truly, as far as the Law goes, there really is no room for the argument you are making.
While we are at it, I find this whole debate to be a little specious. If I were a Jewish woman who desperately wanted to take a male mitzvah because I thought that the Tradition did not have enough for me to connect to, I would clamor to bind Teffillin.
Teffillin is a much, much bigger deal halachically. There is vastly more symbolism. Yet, we do not hear women clamoring to do this mitzvah... Could that be because it is something done privately and takes a lot of time, rather than something to make a statement in schul about?
As to the keen absence that some Jewish women felt was in the Shimona Esrei, again, men could argue that inclusion in the People should pass by the male line. Yet it does not. He may be the G-d of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, but Issac and Jacob would not be Jews in the first place if not for Sarah and Rivkah who clearly believed in that same G-d.
I really do respect the absence that some women felt there. I am not some fellow from the Middle Ages. However, I strongly believe that this is barking up the wrong tree.
February 17, 2008 4:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2008 16:49
YES! IT's The Little Things That can Ye Alot!
February 17, 2008 3:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2008 15:46
I'd say if it's anything, Frenda, it's about certain people not playing well with others, who can do nothing but denigrate other faiths in an interfaith forum when someone speaks about their cultural and religious experiences.
This is *about* religion and politics, including feminism... I suppose if she were finding something to argue about you might find it more 'important,' but I find this is a little chance to learn something new from someone else's perspective.
Actually, I think it'd possibly be an interesting topic to speak of *what* religious and ethnic garments mean, even all inevitable hijab arguments aside.
Sometimes it's the little things that make all the difference in understanding.
February 17, 2008 3:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2008 15:02
Hello HUMATES from sweet sweet SPACE-SHiP Momma /Poppa EARTH (Planet on many many many Worlds like Hear, but in varied Temperature Hue Frequecies), aka S.S. GAiA, S.S. GEOiD, S.S. TELLUSng something!
Pakistan is on Stolen Land that belongs to Greater iNDIA, not Arabs like Israel:
Important" PAKiSATAN, aka PAKISTAN(s) [west & East] are on STOLEN-LAND from Sweet iNDIA, the place where "i" left my Hat but not me Heart!
Please Do not DENY that giant PAKISTAN , un-like ancient tiny ISRAEL, was 'stolen' under Islamic [Religious, more than political] Pretext's via "AL TAQIYAH" aka 1st iSLAMIC SHARIA to conquer. And 2nd "AL TAQIYA" is to rule the Tribes therein & therefrom!
< ?: +)/ Ya? YA!
February 17, 2008 2:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2008 14:46
!
>))))2)0)0)8))))) "NO-SHARIA!"
!
!
!
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:
VOTE:
NO' Sharia!
NO Hallakha!
NO Caste System(s)!
NO Rule By BiBLE, GiTA, QURAN!
NO Theocracy!
No Monarchi!
NO Putting Down Woman Anywhere!
MORE Protection For Kids!
THANK YOU!
SHOOKRIA!
KHUDA-HAFIZ!
February 17, 2008 2:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2008 14:13
ON FAITH is misnamed. It's "ABOUT JEWS"
Always and in every way, every day. Why not be honest? There is no other religion.
That a major columnists has nothing to do but talk about her shawl is very telling.
February 17, 2008 1:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2008 13:56
iMAGINE; "The RELiGiON OF EVERYTHING" before the SCiENCE OF EVERYTHING?? Ya Ya! SO gladly sayth,
"Good Riddence 'Old Time religion',
Good Bye MECCA!
Good Bye JERUSALEM!
Good Bye VATICAN/CANTURBERY!
Good Bye NEPAL/TIBET!
Good Bye ARMISTAR!
Good Bye HELLENICS!
Good Bye CAVE/DESERT//JUNGLE/ISLAND “BiO-MENTALiTY!”
AND say instead,
"HELLO , Me Sweet sweet, Made in U.S.A. O.ne U.niversal R.eligion SYSTEM! Hello
1) Hello "MORMON".
2) Hello "TRANSFiNiTY". and
3) Hello "COURSE IN MiRiCLES"! That's All folks!
Imagine: ALL Made in Sweet sweet A*M*E*R*i*C*A! [Not Imported or imitation] All else will be Abolished & Illegalized & have ALL, EVERY & ANY Governmental "Privilages" removed like MIKE HUCKABEES CHURCH 1st via their ECLATi Given (not their God Given) I.R.S. 'Tax-Exempt-Status's' and the rest will also tumble Down down down untill their is no-more , competing, "Pre-Apocalyptic" [non-DYNAMIC genuine Faith, but STATIC Pre-Apocalyptic as if Religions] SYSTEM(s) are gone in +/- 250 Years!
Important. All King James Version Bibles [They are an ENGLISH-CROWN iMPORT, not made in AMERICA!] shopuld be Embargo'd on and or Illegalized or Raise , like the 'Boston Tea Party' the 'Importation Levy' therefrom!
Please see this 'WiKi' Crown-Copy Monopoly linko, on the 'KJV', that is Governmentally Enforced via the [un] holy "DRUNKINN RACIST NOAH STORY(s)" , aka "The Most EViLizing Story ever Told etc.!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_copyright ,Thanks.
HARK! Besides the HUMATE "TETRA-NEEDS" (Food, Shelter, LOVE, Clothes) of Humans , but in case or issues of religion , that they Only need the
1) "Book of MORMON", and or
2) "Book Of TRANSFiNiTY", and or the
3) "Book of "aCOURSE iN MiRiCLES" .
Hello World, We HUMATES speak American, not English, like them Bloody Chaps from the ROMAN CATHOLIC EMPIRE , includes the ISLAMIC epires, JEWISH empires, HINDU & BUDDHISTS empires too, et al!! And We HUMATES do not need the [un] likes of his "FREUDIAN SLIPO Of Genuines Prophecy's" " remarks like ANGLICAL Bishop Mr. Williams, the POPE, Armageddon Lover John HAGEE of America (want to see USA drop a ATOMIC WEAPON on IRAN et al) AND
also scrupulous characters, not Biblical wannabe Characters like Hagge's Co-Parner in Crime & Grime,
Mr. Anti-I.R.S. big mouth 'Minister Of Everything" Mr. Mike wannabe HUCKABEE (who wants to Christianize USA ) or
that other Bible-Bollixer who wanted to have President CHAVEZ of Venezualia ASSASSINATED, not to mention preditor PEDAPHILE-PRIESTS or
them Televangelical immortal Theives like Husband & Wife, Jim & Tammy BAKKER of "PTL", & their JESSICA HAHN Preacher 'Gang Rape Story'. Please paste her name in Google & you will see what "i" am talking about!
Example:
Yes MU-HAM-MAD was or is the Last Chosen 'Prophet' in the Middle-East & for near East Only, and Never was He or him the 'prophet' of AMERICA! Maybe overseas, but never in Sweet sweet U.S.A.!
Soo, very Soon, the 'Healing Of Religious Torn potential-Good-Humates (aka Humans) & their competing Natopns & Global Peace is comming sooner than expected!!!!
February 17, 2008 1:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2008 13:50
VOTE: Abolish ALL "iMPORTED" [Not-Made or Prophecied in Sweet Sweet U.S.A.) Pre-Apocalyptic 'Cottage-Religions" in U.S. of A., not Industry's!!
VOTE: DEPORT ALL, Not-Made-IN-A*M*E*R*i*C*A, iMPORTED Religions, Not MEXICANS!
INstead Unite MEXICO w/U.S.A for an Additional 10 States!!! As a Matter of fact, VOTE to Merge & Absorb All AMERICA upto & No Further than PANAMMA, ironically John McCAINS "Birth Place!
Trivia: Did ye knowth that Senator , wanabe Prez John McCain is a 'Dual Citizen of Panama & USA?
PS: Did you also know that John McCain & His Wife , are ALCOHOL Pushers & have lots of Blood on their hand for many Highway Car Crashes due to their Alchol Monopoly Biz in ARIZONA!?????
Please see these linko's on Cindy Lou Hensley the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm
Shame Shame John & Cindy McCAIN!! Kennedy's too!
Ya Ya Yo Yo!
--
...
http://www .astronomy2009.org/////
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA USA!!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !!
PEACE,PAZ,SALAAM,SHOLOM.....__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:
..
--
February 17, 2008 8:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2008 08:56
Dear Hmmm,
I don't believe I wrote that there are no gender roles--only that what roles we have are social constructions. And neither one of us has claimed women are in any way inferior, so I'm not sure why you're reassuring me of the Jewish tradition of valuing women.
On the subject of tallit, I didn't say that women originally performed this mitzvah as well as men. But it begs the question: did they, at one point? Could they? Who is being addressed by the commandment itself? What in the text indicates it's a commandment meant only for men? What exactly is it about wearing tallit that is _in itself_ a masculine act?
My answer is that it's not in itself a gendered act. Without the constructed social reality that post-dates the Torah and biblical times, wearing tallit is simply the fulfillment of a commandment that was transmitted without regard to the gender of those it was given to.
Does that apply to all commandments? No. But it does to this one. I'm not arguing that prescribed gender roles are necessarily sexist. They might be, and they might not. Either way, that's a discussion that needs to take place. Nobody's throwing the baby out with the bath water by trying to insert or reclaim the responsibility to fulfill certain mitzvot. If it can be shown halakhically that women are not prohibited and are even commanded to wear tallit, then how is it fair to deny them that obligation on the basis of being uncomfortable with the feminist movement in Judaism as a whole?
What I'm saying is, we need to consider these things on a case by case basis. Disagreeing with the gist of feminism overall is a poor reason to disagree with an individual feminist act. The two are not the same.
As for the Sh'moneh Esrei, how about a compromise? We study its history and all the complex meanings contained within the original, but we still daven it with the inclusion of the matriarchs. That way, we're learned _and_ represented. But we could bat that back and forth for days and never get anywhere. The matriarchs were added to the prayer because women felt a keen absence without them. That is a valid--extremely valid--concern. Women feel invisible, and thus excluded. That gets downplayed because--hey! what do we women know? Why should we get to interpret our own tradition when it's so clear, as in the examples you gave, that traditional Judaism honors and respects women?
February 17, 2008 1:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2008 01:44
Dear Rachel,
I think the issue comes with accepting that there are gender roles in the first place. Of course, women are just as smart and talented as men. Of course women make great physicists and surgeons too.
However, there are differences (different does not equal better or worse) between the sexes and it strikes me as opposed to reality to try to establish as a matter of dogma that there should be no differences.
If you look at Aishet Chayil, the woman of valor, that King David was describing as the paragon of Jewish womanhood is hardly a wallflower. She has strong arms, wisdom comes from her lips, she is good at business, she cares for the poor and her family never suffers from want because she is always there being the "modern woman who does it all." Yet, this psalm, sang every Shabbos to honor the women present, was written almost 3000 years ago. How many meek, weak willed Jewish women do you know? There are powerful cultural reasons for why our women have always been so strong.
The author very clearly states how she is making a feminist statement when she wears a tallit. I am woman hear me pray... My point is that this is a missplaced feminism. The question comes to accepting that men and women have different roles sometimes.
You are incorrect that wearing a talit was originally a mitzvah that both genders shared. The commandment to put fringes on your garment was always considered a male Mitzvah. If not, why do Orthodox women *not* have fringes on their skirts?
For whatever long set of reasons - and there actually are long reasons for it, that favor women as being inherently *more* spiritual than men, the talit is a boy thing.
I am not saying that the world will end if Jewish women wear a tallit. I am saying that in the mad dogmatic rush to do anything that boys do too, they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are many girl mitzvot too - and they are good things. There is nothing wrong with telling young Jewish women that it is OK to not run around showing skin everywhere. G-d forbid, a man love her for her mind and spirit as well as her body. There is nothing wrong with making a strong Jewish home. There is no sin in focusing on the mitzvot that make Jewish mothers into better Jewish instructors of the young. The Tradition has always understood the primary role of the mother as the primary teacher. When the Tradition teaches that the People are saved in the merit of the righteous women, it is talking about a whole battery of girl things that rather than being dogmatically homogenized should rather be praised.
A prime example of my point about learning more about Judaism before deciding it should be changed comes with the trend in Conservative and Reform synagogues to alter the Shimona Esrei to include the names of the Matriarchs. Apparently, the line about Him being the G-d of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was seen by some women as a slight to women. So they add the language of the naming the Matriarchs too.
So what is it that they threw out when they did this? For one, they destroyed the poetry of the Hebrew. It took the Sanhedrin, the greatest sages of their day, years to compose this prayer. Every word has meaning, every letter has *mathematical* meaning. Now the typical Conservative Jew does not know Hebrew, let alone Gematria, but, if you take it out without even caring it is there because of modern dogma, you insure that no future generation learns that meaning either.
That is a tragedy. If she really wants to be woman, and roar in schul, she could take the time to learn the heritage better. The Tradition has always made room for strong intelligent women.
February 16, 2008 10:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 22:23
Dear Rachel,
I think the issue comes with accepting that there are gender roles in the first place. Of course, women are just as smart and talented as men. Of course women make great physicists and surgeons too.
However, there are differences (different does not equal better or worse) between the sexes and it strikes me as opposed to reality to try to establish as a matter of dogma that there should be no differences.
If you look at Aishet Chayil, the woman of valor, that King David was describing as the paragon of Jewish womanhood is hardly a wallflower. She has strong arms, wisdom comes from her lips, she is good at business, she cares for the poor and her family never suffers from want because she is always there being the "modern woman who does it all." Yet, this psalm, sang every Shabbos to honor the women present, was written almost 3000 years ago. How many meek, weak willed Jewish women do you know? There are powerful cultural reasons for why our women have always been so strong.
The author very clear states how she is making a feminist statement when she wears a tallit. I am woman hear me pray... My point is that this is a missplaced feminism. The question comes to accepting that men and women have different roles sometimes.
You are incorrect that wearing a talit was originally a mitzvah that both genders shared. The commandment to put fringes on your garment was always considered a male Mitzvah. If not, why do Orthodox women *not* have fringes on their skirts?
For whatever long set of reasons - and there actually are long reasons for it, that favor women as being inherently *more* spiritual than men, the talit is a boy thing.
I am not saying that the world will end if Jewish women wear a tallit. I am saying that in the mad dogmatic rush to do anything that boys do too, they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are many girl mitzvot too - and they are good things. There is nothing wrong with telling young Jewish women that it is OK to not run around showing skin everywhere. G-d forbid, a man love her for her mind and spirit as well as her body. There is nothing wrong with making a strong Jewish home. There is no sin in focusing on the mitzvot that make Jewish mothers into better Jewish instructors of the young. The Tradition has always understood the primary role of the mother as the primary teacher. When the Tradition teaches that the People are saved in the merit of the righteous women, it is talking about a whole battery of girl things that rather than being dogmatically homogenized should rather be praised.
A prime example of my point about learning more about Judaism before deciding it should be changed comes with the trend in Conservative and Reform synagogues to alter the Shimona Esrei to include the names of the Matriarchs. Apparently, the line about Him being the G-d of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was seen by some women as a slight to women. So they add the language of the naming the Matriarchs too.
So what is it that they threw out when they did this? For one, they destroyed the poetry of the Hebrew. It took the Sanhedrin, the greatest sages of their day, years to compose this prayer. Every word has meaning, every letter has *mathematical* meaning. Now the typical Conservative Jew does not know Hebrew, let alone Gematria, but, if you take it out without even caring it is there because of modern dogma, you insure that no future generation learns that meaning either.
That is a tragedy. If she really wants to be woman, and roar in schul, she could take the time to learn the heritage better. The Tradition has always made room for strong intelligent women.
February 16, 2008 10:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 22:21
A complete rejection of magical thought would result in your utter liberation, Ruth.
Guaranteed.
Free of magical beings or magical realms, your thoughts will soar.
Once you stop believing in them, the magical hoodoos disappear. They are no more.
February 16, 2008 9:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 21:20
I was very moved by your story, Ruth, and I know that it is the story shared by many of us, all women "of a certain age" - particularly in the Conservative movement. For several years after I began wearing my own tallit (which, incidentally, served as our chuppah 27 years ago, I would delicately ask each time we would attend Shabbat services elsewhere whether I would "feel comfortable" wearing my tallit. I was doing that woman thing - not wanting to offend by asserting my own faith and rights - something which did not carry over into the other parts of my life. It's my tallit and I'm wearing it.
Interestingly, I have a 15 year old daughter for whom this is not a struggle, and who has not worn her tallit regularly since her bat mitzvah. Go figure!!!!
February 16, 2008 7:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 19:52
VOTE: Abolish ALL Pre-Apocalyptic 'Cottage-Religions" in U.S. of A., not Industry's!!
February 16, 2008 7:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 19:50
Hmmm,
I don't think the OP meant to imply that a woman's prayers are lesser than a man's. Rather, that the obligation to wear tallit was not given only to men in the first place.
The option not to wear it became, over time, an obligation not to wear it, because wearing the tallit and not wearing it became an expression of gender. Wearing it is considered a male act; when a woman wears it, she performs a transgressive act, blurring the distinctions between what's understood as masculine and feminine, and undermining the definition of maleness.
The thing is, it really doesn't have to. If a woman is not pressed or prevented by her family obligations--if she has the time and desire to walk into temple with her family, stand next to her husband and say the blessing over her own tallit, then why shouldn't she? She's following a commandment in love, not crossdressing or stealing male power. G-d commands us to wear tallit in order to remember His commandments, not to define our gender identity.
As for Shabbos candles, that analogy actually does make me step back and see the issue from your perspective. It's _weird_ to think of a husband lighting the candles. Honestly, my gut reaction is to think of such a thing as a seizure of my right to perform the mitzvah, as though this hypothetical husband were stealing my role. It even makes me rethink my perception of his masculinity. It just goes to show how deeply gender expression is rooted in our minds. And no, I don't think I would like it if my (still hypothetical) husband started lighting the candles instead of me--but:
1) wearing tallit is something both men and women can do together. When a woman wears it, she doesn't take away men's right to wear it too; and
2) if my husband believed that lighting Shabbos candles would deepen his connection to G-d, Torah, tradition, etc. and enrich his spiritual life, then I would only encourage him to embrace that belief. In fact, the idea of us lighting one candle each, and saying the blessing together.... Well, I can only hope for a marriage that is such a partnership.
February 16, 2008 7:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 19:14
I respect what you had to say about wanting to wear a tallit, but, I must ask, why does taking a man's mitzvah appeal to you so much?
No where in Judaism does it say that a woman's prayers are lesser than a man's. In fact, quite the opposite is given again and again in the tradition, starting with G-d himself telling Abraham to listen to Sarah. Those Medieval rabbaim you disparage were actually making a statement about the greater spirituality of women and the need for men to have rituals as an added focus.
Perhaps before you go trying to change Judaism, you should perhaps learn some more about it.
As a man, I see the beauty of lighting Shabbos candles. I do not feel the need to claim it as a man's mitzvah however. I do not feel less of a man because this is traditionally a woman's mitzva.
February 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 17:23
Dear, Ghyslaine ROC
A tallit is nothing like a Hijab. It never was nor will it ever be. If someone points this out to you in mild tones you resort to using the unbelievably insulting term askenNAZI. That is beyond the pale.
You know nothing of Judaism or history, only how to be ignorant and insulting while spewing vile propaganda. I suppose that makes you a KORANIMAL.
February 16, 2008 5:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 17:16
Adam was a Muslim(?)(He was a myth).All the *Jewish* Prophets were Muslims(?).Jesus was a Muslim(!)
Is this *civilised exchange of views* ?
In that case,all Jews are muslims and all christians are muslims as well.
*any human who submits to the Laws of God*
Which God ? Zeus was a God,Amon-Ra was a God.An,Teshup,Jupiter were also Gods such as many others(dont forget Goddess,perhaps Janet is a muslim)
Besides,muslim believes in Allah,not God of Jesus(Jesus Christ was Son of God and islam curses trinity-although it doesnt know what Trinity is-and islam curses Jews)
Islam is the bad imitation of Judaism.Do you know *Moon God* ?
*Muslims are allowed to marry Jewish and Christians women* No,wrong.Islam strongly forbids to marry with non-muslim women 2.221
*People of Book* is one of many contrdictions in islam and it doesnt mean anything.
Head covering,whatever it names in Religion or Cults,had been a stone age custom,nothing else.
Yes,even in this days,a City in southern Austria has forbidden to build mosque and minaret.
February 16, 2008 3:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 15:15
thanks ms. marcus for sharing and giving us an education too-
i find it interesting that ms. kahan found resistance to her own wearing of the tallit from the women and not the men.
ive had the same experience as a muslim woman- the disturbance of the comfortable status qup seems to threaten, i imagine- those whose positions in society are more vulenrable to a degree-
i applaud your courage in your religious expression, and especially teaching your daughters to consider it as natural as life itself to wear it comfortably and their daughters will not even be able to imagine your own (initial) discomfort!
peace
February 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 14:58
What ever became of the babushka?
Maybe you could start a tradition like the Hawaiians, in which women teach keikis (children) to make their own hula regalia. It's so delightful to watch grandmothers, mothers, teens and toddlers dancing together.
You would have a similar tradition to pass down with the tallit.
February 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 13:06
Unfortunately, Judaism is not your religion: Feminism is.
There is PLENTY of room for expression as a Jewish woman within the framework of traditional Judaism. You would be well-advised to explore that instead of going out to look for things that are not your obligation.
February 16, 2008 12:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 12:36
Bravo for you Ms. Marcus. Its time women do as they wish. What you are doing is good for Judaism. It needs to pushed into accepting women as full humans with equal rights. Why they have been denied to women is something that is inexplicable, and inexcusable. Its a holdover from days of yore when men made the rules; they are not god-given, although some would have them believe it to be so. Since all Jewish males have come from Jewish mothers, how then could women be inferior? How could inferior beings produce superior ones? Next step is to read the torah. The step after is to abrogate all the sexist,outdated and abhorrent practices in halachic law that have put women into inferior positions.
February 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 12:12
!
>))))2)0)0)8))))) "NO-SHARIA!"
!
!
!
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:
VOTE:
NO' Sharia!
NO Hallakha!
NO Caste System(s)!
NO Rule By BiBLE, GiTA, QURAN!
NO Putting Down Woman Anywhere!
THANK YOU!
February 16, 2008 12:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2008 12:02
**When christians were wearing a crucifix,or a medallion of the *Virgin Mary*,and Jews a Kippa,a star of David,NOBODY found anything wrong**
Yes,because,all of them are not symbols of Subjugation and Segregation.
**Only when Muslims wanted just to be Muslims(?)(!)(is the headscarf piller of islam),all hell broke loose**
Yes,because,the headscarf is the mark of Degradation and Enslavement,because islam rejects *women rights*.
Because,the State and Society should be governed according to Human Rights,*Men-Women equality* and Contemporary Values,not *I divorce you* order and the Desert Cult.
February 16, 2008 11:20 AM | Report O