The Magic & Meaning of Torah: Are Women Given More Freedom Than Men?
EDITED:
As I have posted during these past few weeks, I have taken a particular interest in reading the Torah and learning the Talmud during these difficult days. Somehow, reading these materials takes my mind away from the pain thinking about my daughter, and brings about a sense of inner peace, and a spark of light, rather than darkness. Yesterday, actually, was the first day that I did not cry, and I think that the acceptance of her illness along with the knowledge that progress will be slow is beginning to sink in now.
Each day, I receive these commandments and prohibitions in my email. All this week the following Mitzvahs have appeared:
Negative Mitzvah 355: It is forbidden to take a woman as a wife
without marriage
-Deuteronomy 23:18 "There shall be no indecent women among
the daughters of Israel"
Today's mitzvah Negative Mitzvah 262: It is forbidden to neglect a wife's rights-Exodus 21:10 "He shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or rights of marriage"When a master (or his son) marries his Jewish maidservant,he must treat her properly.The Torah cautions him not to neglect her rights and provideher with all her needs. This Negative Mitzvah applies not onlyto a maidservant, but any Jewish wife.
The way I intrepret the first mitzvah is that if a man takes a woman as his wife (has sex with her), especially a daughter of Israel, a Jewess, he must marry her. I do not see such a prohibition applying to a woman, which would mean that it would be permitted for a woman to have sex with a man, Jew or non-Jew without marriage. The second mitzvah forbids a husband to neglect his wife, but no such provision is given for a wife towards her husband. In a similiar vein, the Torah specifically prohibits a man from lying with a man, hence, some would say forbidding homosexuality betweeen men, but no such provision is made for women.
Does this mean that a woman in fact has more sexual freedom than a man according to the Torah? Are they also to be respected more, obligated to be treated better in the eyes of God? Is there an implication that man would need a specific prohibition, like the wearing of tzizis, as a reminder to treat his wife well, since he is more likely to disobey? How do you interpret these passages and why, if at all would a double standard apply?
Thank you for your minds.
As I have posted during these past few weeks, I have taken a particular interest in reading the Torah and learning the Talmud during these difficult days. Somehow, reading these materials takes my mind away from the pain thinking about my daughter, and brings about a sense of inner peace, and a spark of light, rather than darkness. Yesterday, actually, was the first day that I did not cry, and I think that the acceptance of her illness along with the knowledge that progress will be slow is beginning to sink in now.
Each day, I receive these commandments and prohibitions in my email. All this week the following Mitzvahs have appeared:
Negative Mitzvah 355: It is forbidden to take a woman as a wife
without marriage
-Deuteronomy 23:18 "There shall be no indecent women among
the daughters of Israel"
Today's mitzvah Negative Mitzvah 262: It is forbidden to neglect a wife's rights-Exodus 21:10 "He shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or rights of marriage"When a master (or his son) marries his Jewish maidservant,he must treat her properly.The Torah cautions him not to neglect her rights and provideher with all her needs. This Negative Mitzvah applies not onlyto a maidservant, but any Jewish wife.
The way I intrepret the first mitzvah is that if a man takes a woman as his wife (has sex with her), especially a daughter of Israel, a Jewess, he must marry her. I do not see such a prohibition applying to a woman, which would mean that it would be permitted for a woman to have sex with a man, Jew or non-Jew without marriage. The second mitzvah forbids a husband to neglect his wife, but no such provision is given for a wife towards her husband. In a similiar vein, the Torah specifically prohibits a man from lying with a man, hence, some would say forbidding homosexuality betweeen men, but no such provision is made for women.
Does this mean that a woman in fact has more sexual freedom than a man according to the Torah? Are they also to be respected more, obligated to be treated better in the eyes of God? Is there an implication that man would need a specific prohibition, like the wearing of tzizis, as a reminder to treat his wife well, since he is more likely to disobey? How do you interpret these passages and why, if at all would a double standard apply?
Thank you for your minds.
18 Comments:
it doesnt matter how other people will interpret this verse
it all matters how the sages interpret it in talmud
How is it interpreted by the sages in the Talmud? I find this to be a fascinating question. I will accept that interpretation if you tell me what it is.
The Talmud is a fascinating, riveting and stimulating body of law and codes.
These pasasages are open to interpretation. The example you quoted could have meant that at the time, only men had rights, not women.
mr.
it was written by god
if a married woman would vow not to have sexual relations with her husband the vow never takes effect because the woman is obligated to her husband (tractate nedarim)
there is no biblical prohibition as far as lesbianism is concerned but a woman that had "sex"(???) with another woman is prohibited to marry a cohen godel (great cohen)and violates rabinical decrees (tractate sanhadrin)
as far as i see it there is no double standard in regard to this issue
YY,
As usual, your knowledge is so great, and these comments are quite fascinating.
But you did not answer my question: Is it the case that a woman is not obligated, according to Mitzvah 262 to treat her husband right, in the same way as a man is obligated? Do you see an implied difference?
#262 clearly speaks of the mans obligations
but there is surely some mitzvah that talks about the womans obligations
YY, if you are so sure about this, please provide it to me (us) to see.
This would not be 'chuck' and I am sure there would be an explanation of some sort.
No opinion on this particular issue; just wanted to point out (again) how beautifully you deal with the people who post on your blog.
I am not Jewish so take my comments as being from a place of ignorance.
I see the point of your comments, but before asking the question, would it be appropriate to look at the time and society in which the passages were written? I am wondering if there might not have been some social behaviours that were "expecte" and "assumed", especially on the part of women
Good to see you "back" more to usual.
I think that in ancient times people had trouble understanding women as sexual beings. So I think they just didn't worry as much about the rules for women.
Some interesting comments.
It seems that there is a split regarding the source or origin of these laws. On the one hand, there is the devine source (set forth by YY) and on the other the principles were created by humans, as comment.
Does the source of these laws depend upon how they are interpreted, or is the intrepretation separate and apart and distinct.
As a side note, I know YY is deligent, this question will backfire and someone will find a provision that concludes a woman must be available to her husband 24/7!
First off Barbara could you email me your daughter's hebrew name so I can add it to my tehillim list.
Second the mitzva of Onah applys to the man not the wife. He needs to please her, nevertheless, the wife should try to prevent her husb from sinning..
Barbara, i find your questions of your faith so interesting, as I do the fact that Y.Y. never answered you directly per your request, unless he privately did so, or elsewhere... Interesting. I say you go Jewish Woman!!
Though I can't actually contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion here, I wonder also if perhaps there isn't some substance in the fact that the Talmud was written so very long ago when behaviors different from what we know them to be today.
I too like the way that you deal with people who stop in and leave a comment. Very respectful.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home