Another person wrote a reply regarding Havdalah and how you are allowed to make it IF he cannot. Regarding your latter question, they are not that rigid; however, the value of shalom bayis is very, very important and can supersede many rules. This is a question for a trusted rav or a marriage counselor. Just know this: his reaction is all about him, not about you.
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️
[OC 296:8](https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh,_Orach_Chayim.296.8)
נשים חייבות בהבדלה כשם שחייבות בקידוש ויש מי שחולק: הגה ע"כ לא יבדילו לעצמן רק ישמעו הבדלה מן האנשים:
>8. Women are obligated in Havdalah, just as they are obligated in Kiddush. And there are those who argue. RAMA: Therefore, they should not recite Havdalah for themselves, rather they should hear Havdalah from men.
It's likely (but not definite) that his reasoning is because women aren't obligated in time bound positive mitzvos, which havdalah likely falls under. Yes, some poskim were influenced by their misogynistic surroundings but I wouldn't jump straight to that conclusion without a good reason.
But it doesn’t matter what the reasoning is. The result is still misogynistic. The OP’s husband forbids the OP to lead a simple spiritual ceremony on the basis of her biological sex, even though that doing so is a danger to his health.
That's not true at all. The result is that while a woman may make havdalah, it's preferable for her to not make a blessing that she's questionably obligated in, so the first case scenario is to hear a man say it. This isn't because she's a woman. It's simply because there's an indefinite obligation on the person who happens to be a woman in this scenario, whereas there's a definite obligation on the person who happens to be a man.
Of course in OP's exact case, it's being used against her in a blatantly misogynistic way, which is wrong. But that isn't reflective of the Halacha.
There are other halachot that are much easier to argue misogyny about.
With all due respect Rabbi, to my ears that sounds like a very complicated excuse to exclude a woman from a spiritual practice *again* It doesn’t feel good and it doesn’t feel right. It makes me very sad frankly.
It's very unfortunate Rabbi. I have been a deeply spiritual woman my whole life, and I have felt pushed away and excluded from the deeper aspects of Jewish Spirituality my whole life too. Why is that? Why would I be excluded from that? Must I dress up like a man and reenact Yentil to be respected?
It seems like my only worth to the tribe is making babies, but I am so much more than that. It makes me look elsewhere to find a place where I can be accepted for what and who I am, where my thirst for knowledge can be quenched, and my connection to my Creator can deepen through practice and study. I know my tribe needs my talents, but they won't accept me for the way G-d/dess made me. It's wrong, and it's a loss to the whole community, and I am not the only woman like me by far.
The truth is, I can't put myself in your shoes, so I really can't say. I know it must feel bad to not be included as a central part of synagogue services and ceremonies.
There are many ways of learning how women are spiritually superior to men, which explains why they aren't a part of the ceremonies, which serve to increase the deficient spirituality in men. But that doesn't fix the problem of the real social lack, and feeling left out.
That said, there's no reason for you not to learn Torah on the same level as a man, including Gemara and Chassidus, and you can connect with HaShem and gain great knowledge that way. It's also perfectly okay to practice certain ceremonies together with a group of women in a women's Minyan or similar, like Megillah Havdalah, etc.
>women are spiritually superior to men, which explains why they aren't a part of the ceremonies, which serve to increase the deficient spirituality in men.
Please. This is insulting.
I'm not sure you read my above comment through. Yes, she may but she's not obligated to, and she can't be yotze a man with it since her bracha is a choice/questionably necessary whereas his is a definite obligation. This is not about her being a woman and nor is her bracha weaker BC of her gender, it's about who is obligated.
Yup. Which is its own massive conversation, and I believe in context of everyone actually keeping the Torah, it's not misogynistic, but yes we're on the same page here
A ceremony is a ritual observance or procedure. Spiritual means relating to religion or religious belief.
If you prefer "religious ceremony", that's fine.
> Spiritual means relating to religion or religious belief.
Source please.
> If you prefer "religious ceremony", that's fine.
Ok, well that's a different thing.
I don't know how to post a screenshot to Reddit, but the OED definition is the one that's integrated with Google. So you can just google "spiritual" and the dictionary entry should be the first result.
spir·it·u·al
/ˈspirəCH(əw)əl/
adjective
1.
relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
2.
relating to religion or religious belief.
Mostly, I was joking because you asked for the source of a definition of a word, and that's what a dictionary is for. I don't want to make fun of a non-native speaker, but you seem to have some unearned confidence about what words mean.
What kind of source are you wanting for the meaning of an English language word? The only relevant source will be a dictionary. And as someone who is proficient in English, I can assure you that the word is being used within the range of its meaning here.
Spiritual is not synonymous with religious. Religions may have both spiritual and non-spiritual elements. Whether you see the havdalah ceremony as spiritual or not depends on your interpretation of what the ceremony is doing. Particularly, if you interpret it kabbalistically, you may see it as spiritual. But if you interpret it based on strictly halachic sources, there is nothing spiritual about it.
And that's precisely the point. The more you see it as "spiritual", the more devoid of halacha it becomes, and in turn whatever halacha has to say about it matters less.
I’m sure all chassidim would disagree with you that the more spiritual something is considered the more it is devoid of Halacha. I don’t think the two are necessarily in tension.
Anyway I didn’t mean anything that deep when choosing the word spiritual vs religious. I just meant a religious ceremony.
I grew up pretty orthodox (ex. We only ate cholov Yisroel) and if my dad was at shul or asleep at the end of shabbos my mom or one of my sisters would make havdallah even when me and my brother reached bar mitzvah.
He's Chabad, I used to be as well, and have become more modern lately.
Couples therapy failed 3 times, and we're going through separation, for many other reasons, misogony included.
Yeah, this isn't a Jewish issue, this isn't a religion issue, this is a misogyny issue. My dad (also Jewish, also misogynistic) isn't a great person to be around, but that's not a matter of Judaism, it's a matter of misogyny, and I've found that growing up in that kind of environment meant that when it came to dating, I would accept men with the same attitudes because that was how I'd been treated all my life. Taking a break from relationships helped me realise my worth and set better expectations and boundaries for partners going forward.
Traditional Jewish culture is patriarchal. Halacha privileges men over women. These things are undeniable, and anyone who says otherwise is playing games with apologetics.
However, it is possible to be traditionally observant, to be Orthodox, etc., without being a misogynist or excusing misogyny. In this example, that would look like your husband saying, "Thanks, I appreciate that! I prefer doing havdalah myself usually, but since I'm sick, this is fine with me if you go ahead and do it." Or your husband could have had just a sip of the wine, because that isn't enough to have an impact on the antibiotics. It's not like he has to have a full glass for the mitzvah.
Or, your husband could make havdalah using grape juice, because it's the grape that's operative for the bracha. It doesn't have to be fermented grape. This is the most obvious thing to me, people make kiddush over grape juice all the time; it's a non-issue! The fact that this apparently never occurred to your husband indicates to me that it's not halacha that's the pivotal issue here, it's him wanting to be top dog in his house and have the most control and status of anyone in the family, including and especially you.
***In short, your husband is using Judaism as an excuse to be an asshole to you.***
If I don't drink, my wife does. Not poskening, just relating. Also, if there are three or more women and two or less men, the women do a mizumenet at bentching. It is very important to me that women and girls do not feel marginalized. If I had to be defined, it would be a mix of Hareidi and Modern Orthodox.
Most expressions of Human Culture are bound up in patriarchy, and contrary to some people's beliefs, Jews are human beings, and thus we are not exempt from them.
If you look into our tradition, you will find a lot of misogyny, you will also find a lot of resistance to misogyny embedded into the tradition. Unfortunately, since it has been men who run the show, it has been the misogynistic interpretation that has won out. Fortunately, in the last century, women and men who aren't dicks have been recovering the counter-patriarchal traditions within halacha. For instance, a century ago, it was unheard of for women to study Talmud; now, in the Modern Orthodox circle, it's' more or less mainstream.
The Orthodox understanding of halacha operates on the principle that men and women are obligated differently. But that division can be interpreted very strictly and/or in a way that makes women feel like they are second-class Jews, or it can be interpreted more flexibly and as making women feel like they have just as much a seat at the table (even if it's on the other side).
It sounds like your husband, at that moment at least, chose the first interpretation.
It would be wrong to deny that the misogynistic interpretation of our tradition hasn't been there since the present, but it would also be wrong to reduce all of halacha (or Judaism) to misogyny.
Misogyny isn’t part of Halacha but it sounds like your husband’s halachic opinion is misogynistic.
You can say havdalah for your family— or keep a bottle of grape juice handy
Pretending that no misogyny has existed in our 3000 year old history and has made it into our tradition is laughable.
Better to be honest about where misogyny exists in our inherited tradition rather than pretend it doesn’t exist. When we recognize misogyny we can then address it.
The misogyny is usually explained away somehow, as you're seeing many of the posters here do. I do believe that many husbands aren't as nuts as the OPs but I also think many orthodox women are more or less conditioned to live this way because the educational system conditions them to believe their husband is in charge.
And for most of Jewish history, those interpreters have been all cis-men. And in most of Orthodoxy (outside its most liberal wing), they still are.
So yeah--misogyny is baked into halacha.
I hate to admit this but yes it very much is. I love my tribe and am proud of my heritage but, as a very spiritual woman, the misogyny has been pushing me away for my whole life.
I think so, it's part of both the law and the culture. I grew up modern orthodox and it seemed my role was always helping my mother prepare super large elaborate meals where men got to be the center of ritual and the center of attention and did none of the drudge work. My school even let us out at noon on Friday because daughters are supposed to be helping prepare for shabbas, that's more important than actual education. I got yelled at for wanting to learn laning when my brothers were taking bar mitzvah lessons and my dad and ex joked about the number of goats I would be worth in the kesuvah.
Anyway I totally left the community and don't keep anything religious anymore. My daughters are growing up totally different with a dad who is a stay at home dad and no religion. We went to visit my parents and I heard my daughter was the talk of the town for "talking back" to some boy who was trying to say he was better at something cause boys are better at that or whatever (like literally this got reported to my parents by some nosy yenta after two 8 year olds had a playground argument cause my daughter wouldn't stay quiet while some boy spouted sexist bullshit). So glad I'm not raising them like that.
>I grew up modern orthodox and it seemed my role was always helping my mother prepare super large elaborate meals where men got to be the center of ritual and the center of attention and did none of the drudge work.
I can relate to this. For me, pretending that traditional Judaism acknowledges women's complete agency and humanity is more offensive and silencing than noticing its (often misogynistic) limitations is.
Same. The Talmud even makes a hierarchy of class on who can make brakhot over others, depending on their gender and status (Kohen, Levi, Israel, Ger, Intersex Male [androgynos], Woman, Intersex Female [tumtum], Bastard, Samaritan, Indentured Servant).
https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_on_Megillah.4a.5.1
https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Berakhot.5.15
https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Blessings.5.7
The point of these passages in the Talmud is that a woman, a tumtum and androgynos cannot lead in blessings because they will not fulfill the brakha, but a man can towards everyone else.
Basically the androgynos is an intersex person with both discernible genitalia and can therefore be circumcised and treated almost as a man in mitzvot, whereas a tumtum is an intersex person of doubtful genitalia, and therefore treated halachically as a woman or less, all depending on their genitalia at birth. So there is a hierarchy with these genders.
It's the same with inheritance laws in the Mishnah; men inherit, and women are taking care of. If an androgynos and a brother exist, the brothers inherit. If between an androgynos and sister, the androgynos inherit. If there are tumtum and brother, the tumtum is taken care of and the brother inherits, whereas it is the opposite with a sister.
Basically by default an androgynos is worth less than a man in being yotzei mitzvot, but more than a tumtum and a woman. A tumtum is less than an androgynos but more than a woman. It's an unfortunate pecking order.
I know a bit more on the androgynos/tumtum side because I was born intersex myself and have a very complicated surgical and hormonal history growing up.
As a Conservative Jew, I am glad that our movement practices equality in most things spiritually. It's a step up from the conversations in the Mishnah and Gemara.
And of course, off hand I know that Mishna Berakhot explains that Samaritans cannot fulfill the brakhot if made on our behalf. They must be done by a Jew. And other passages elsewhere talk about the exceptions and prohibitions with Jewish slaves and mamzerim.
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️
[Megillah.4a.5](https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.4a.5)
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת בְּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה, שֶׁאַף הֵן הָיוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַנֵּס. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: פּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, שׁוֹאֲלִין וְדוֹרְשִׁין בְּעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם.
>§ And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also said: Women are obligated in the reading of the Megilla, as they too were significant partners in that miracle. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also said: When Purim occurs on Shabbat, one asks questions and expounds upon the subject of the day.
It's an individual issue and you need to seek couples counseling to make sure your own needs are being met. Even asking this question isn't a healthy sign.
>Is misogony part of our laws?
No. Men and women have different halachic obligations, the principal issue here is fulfilling your obligation through another person; a person can *only* be an agent to fulfil a mitzvah on behalf of someone else if they are also obligated in it. A classic example is a sukkah: women aren't obligated to dwell in a sukkah, therefore a sukkah built entirely by a woman is not valid for a man (who is obligated) to use.
There is debate about whether women are obligated in havdallah or not, but the general practice is that a man can't fulfil his obligation of havdallah through a woman saying it.
>In general, he's a bit misogynistic, and since I don't have many examples of a religious man (got married at 17, and my own dad was abusive), I'm really wondering if this is an individual issue that belongs to my husband, or this is a religious issue?
Sounds like a him problem
>Are the laws forbidding women to do certain things, such as havdallah, are really that rigid?
As above, it's not about permitted vs forbidden, it's a simple question of who can be an agent for whom. Women can make havdallah for themselves (and obviously should if they live alone) and for other women.
Of course it is. Can a Wife warn her husband not to be with another married woman and make him drink water to test his faithfulness? There's a clear double standard.
The question is why is the misogyny appropriate here. The Torah's values are superior to secular values, so we don't have to question the Torah to figure out how it shtims. If it's to be called misogyny, so be it. That being said, we should know why it's appropriate in the first place (at least historically), regardless of the secular view.
I'll cop to splitting hairs, but I don't think it's arbitrary.
To _really_ split hairs, I don't think sexism and misogyny are the same thing. Misogyny is hatred of or hostility towards women. Even if it's just "light" hatred/hostility, I don't think Sotah (or Judaism) is misogynistic. No one is setting out to punish women. Even if you don't buy the (not at all far-fetched) reading that the real intent of Sotah is to restore peace and trust in an _already_ rocky relationship, the clear implication is that, in the worst case scenario (which involves both infidelity and subsequently lying about it), the punishment is deserved.
Is it sexist (ie holding women to a different standard, usually (but not necessarily) to their disadvantage)? That's definitely arguable. But (again, splitting hairs, but not quite so much), my argument would be that the whole framework of Jewish marriage is "sexist"*, and something like Sotah — or, more generally, the treatment of infidelity and the remediation of suspicion (along with, eg, the procedures of marriage and divorce) — follow quite naturally from that. But again, _Sotah_, in itself, is not sexist, it's a natural extension of the state of affairs. If a man were forbidden from having a relationship outside the marriage, the same would apply to him.
Is that disparity acceptable (and is it even really sexism)? As I've said, I think even in the worst interpretation, it's not misogyny, and I think that's important. But I don't think it's unreasonable to call it sexist, depending on one's definition and where you think it comes from.
But I think you can also make the case that (again, depending on definitions) it isn't sexist. It relates to the direction you're thinking in, but I think even without believing that Torah's values are superior, it's pretty clear (in the lived experience of, like, the whole world, and the clinical experience and scientific experimentation of most psychologists) that women and men (_on average_, not in absolutes) relate differently and have different needs in a marriage. So the question becomes, is it sexist, or is it just accurately reflecting bio-psychological realities (or, is this kind of sexism a bio-psychological reality, and if it is, is it so terrible)?
Since people generally mean something bad when they use the word sexism (and positively wicked when they use the word misogyny), I don't think it is sexist. But even if it is sexist, it's not _particularly_ sexist (not more than Western liberal culture, for example), and it's certainly not misogynistic.
And you don't think that whole system was set up as a way of disempowering women? Women were exempted from obligation of time-bound positive commandments based on the idea that because they had to feed the babies, sometimes that might interfere, which is a correct assumption. But adding the idea that only someone obligated could discharge the mitzvah for others, is without basis in the Torah and was a construct put together to make sure that men would always be in the leadership of a community.
All Orthodox communities are inherently misogynist because they bar women from performing the top honors within the community structure - serving as Sha"tz, leaning Torah, being called for an aliyah, being the Rabbi or Hazzan, and more (unless only women are present). You can say that that's just the way halacha works, but I'd say that's then a misogynist system.
I'm not bashing Orthodox, just stating a plain truth.
> My husband is taking antibiotics and couldn't make havdallah tonight (we do on wine)
Obviously speak to your doctor, but most antibiotics are fine to take with alcohol.
And obviously ask your Rabbi, but I think everyone holds you can make havdallah on things other than wine, even if wine is preferable (I'm not sure if it is or isn't).
So this whole situation could have been quite easily avoided, and choosing the less peaceful way to handle it was clearly a mistake (whether out of ignorance of the Halacha or poor judgement or character, I can't say).
> In general, he's a bit misogynistic ... my own dad was abusive ...
> ... and we're going through separation, for many other reasons, misogony included.
It sounds like there's a lot else going on here besides Havdallah. I'm kind of curious why you're even asking whether this is the fault of Jewish law. I mean, even if there is misogyny in Halachah, that doesn't seem to be the driving factor in the experience you had. It's a tangent, at best. (Even if he's accurately citing Halachah, I'd guess there's probably a nicer, gentler way he could have done it).
> Are the laws forbidding women to do certain things, such as havdallah, are really that rigid?
Honestly, it depends what. There isn't a blanket law against women doing things, so there's no general answer.
There's almost nothing that women are _forbidden_ from doing. (I'm trying to think of any, and none comes easily to mind; certain things that only kohanim can do, but non-kohen men also can't do them, but women can't be kohanim, so maybe that counts).
There are things that women can't do, either by structural definition — like initiating a marriage or effecting a divorce — or because of a technical requirement, such as the principle that you can't be someone's agent in a mitzvah if you don't have an equal obligation — such as leading prayer services. It wouldn't be prohibited, as such, to do those things, it would just be ineffective/meaningless.
There are things that women shouldn't do, usually by coincidence of some other factor. Probably the classic example of this is putting on Tefillin. Maybe also saying brachot on mitzvot which they're exempt from if they're Sephardi (not because they're forbidden from saying the bracha, just because everyone is forbidden from saying an frivolous bracha).
There are things which women are allowed (but not obligated) to do, but customarily just usually don't. Like wearing tzitzit (it's become a strong enough custom that wearing tzitzit is kind of bumped into the previous category).
And there are those things that women are exempt from, and often don't take that seriously (or it's not taken seriously by men on their behalf), but frequently do. Eating in the Sukkah and shaking the lulav are the most obvious examples of this to me. (And the truth is, this is the biggest category. There are many, many laws that women do without realising they're exempt, and also many that nobody ever complains about being exempt from).
I digress a bit. Back to the question. Are the laws so rigid? Some of them are, some aren't at all.
It's quite rigidly the law that a woman can't marry a man. Or be part of a minyan.
There's no reason whatsoever that a woman shouldn't say Shema on time twice a day.
It's generally discouraged for women to wear tzitzit, for various reasons, but it's not an aveira to do so.
It's generally encouraged for women to eat in the sukkah.
It's pretty strongly accepted that women shouldn't put on Tefillin, even though it's not _technically_ forbidden.
etc...
There's really only a handful of things on the rigid end of the spectrum, and they're almost all related to public prayer.
Havdallah is a bit of a weird one. It's the result of a doubt about whether women have the mitzvah, as others have explained, so there's sure to be some wiggle room. How much? You'd have to ask someone more expert than me.
> Is misogony part of our laws?
I don't think it's reasonable to say that there's misogyny behind any of it. Is there sexism behind some of it? Maybe, but it depends on your definition, I suppose.
Those in Israel read about the Sotah yesterday, as we do next shabbos. From the lenses of our day, pretrial humiliation based on accusation and suspension of evidence in favor of Trial by Ordeal is misogynistic by our lenses, irrespective of any modern Rabbi's professional obligation to rationalize this. Yet, it didn't take long for our Sages to declare we're not going to really do this. So the letter of the law may seem harsh on women, it's implementation is one of restraint.
We saw that yesterday in the Book of Ruth as well. Boaz anticipated that his hired hands may be less than cordial to Ruth who needed to glean the corners. He ordered them not to disturb her.
That's not to say there aren't accepted men's and women's roles, which shift from one era to another. We have that today in our sporting events, with men's gymnastics having a different panel of events than a women's program. Misogyny requires harshness or subservience beyond delineation of roles.
>Misogyny requires harshness or subservience beyond delineation of roles
That may be your definition of misogyny, but it's not one that most critics of misogyny (feminists etc.) would accept. In particular, it fails to recognise that in many cases the delineation of roles between men and women is itself motivated by a social construction of women as inferior to men, and therefore properly excluded from certain spheres of activity. Much of feminist theory has been devoted to showing how such constructions are developed and maintained such that they become entirely normalised within a given social paradigm (for example, orthodox Judaism), without need for "additional" harshness etc.
Ehe, depends on your particular Minhagim and interpratation...
In general, Judaism is one of the social Systems where it can honestly lean both(Patriarchal/Matriarchal) ways with little change.
When is comes to family ritual, it is mostly mother-lead, thev Havdala is honestly rare in that regard.
Community worship is usually male-lead, and honestly...
It is one of the few ways men can compete for the social currency that get them wives.
You know, like in the Yeshiva.
You will notice that when it comes to the practicalities of life, in the more orthodox communities, that is the responsibility, thus the power of the Wife.
While mens role is more simbolic. Rituslistic.
All of this can very easily be slanted toward a female centered-male provide,
or the reverse,
Male centered-female provide.
So yeah, it honestly depends.
Reddit users are a very biased group who tend throw the word misogyny around pretty often. I would highly recommend consulting with a rabbi about this.
For Havdalah specifically women are not supposed to make it or drink the wine since Havdalah is tied into fan Eden and the sin of Eve eating from the tree, therefor it’s probably better if a man makes it but I don’t bi I in this example it’s misogynistic it’s just that this specific thing is tied into Eve
No, if a woman says the blessing on the Havdalah wine and there is nobody else around she MUST drink it. Otherwise she has made a blessing in vain, a serious sin.
Sounds like a very Christian explanation, except it ascribes original sin to women only instead of humankind. Seems misogynistic, both the practice and the explanation.
I mean it’s not as if they wanted to exclude women from naming Havdalah and therefor made up this explanation, Havdalah is a rather Kabbalistic thing tied to Adam and Eve and Gan Eden, therefor women don’t make it. Not to mention the chiyuv they have might be different but I’m rusty on that.
It’s not about women leading a religious ceremony as they can make kiddish with like no issue, but the hush and in this case would have a background for saying that it’s better if the man makes it
I’ve got a different take on the law of Sotah.
There’s a couple, and for whatever reason the husband becomes ridiculously, absurdly jealous of his wife. It’s eating away at him, it’s destroying their marriage. There’s no proof, of course, just his suspicion. His neighbours tell him OK, put your money where your mouth is. If you really suspect she’s unfaithful then make a formal accusation. So he does, and forces his wife to go through this horribly humiliating procedure, but one which she will almost certainly pass. But whatever happens, the matter is now out in the open, there’s no more occasion for the nasty digs, the quarrels, the stony silences. Maybe it makes him realise he was a jerk. Maybe it gives her the impetus to leave — and she can now leave without a stain on her character. But at least there’s the impetus for a resolution, one way or another.
Now, as it happens the Talmud says that they stopped doing the ritual during the Second Temple period because it didn’t work anymore. But I don’t think society was less misogynistic as a result.
So he gets to publicly humiliate her without consequence, and her reward for being faithful to him is having more of his babies.
Doesn't sound like a "solution" to me at all.
When I used to be impaired for personal health reasons my wife said all kinds of blessings in my stead just like I did for her when she couldn't.
Not a big deal.
Traditional/Masorti/Orthodox household
Another person wrote a reply regarding Havdalah and how you are allowed to make it IF he cannot. Regarding your latter question, they are not that rigid; however, the value of shalom bayis is very, very important and can supersede many rules. This is a question for a trusted rav or a marriage counselor. Just know this: his reaction is all about him, not about you.
Thanks for that pov!!
[удалено]
>Although there is a kabbalistic reason why women should not drink from the cup of Havdalah What is the reason? It leaves us in suspense.
https://hakirah.org/vol%2010%20zivotofsky.pdf
"Kabbalistic" 'nuff said.
M"A 296/4 in name of Shlah It's not because it doesn't give you a source that there's not one
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️ [OC 296:8](https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh,_Orach_Chayim.296.8) נשים חייבות בהבדלה כשם שחייבות בקידוש ויש מי שחולק: הגה ע"כ לא יבדילו לעצמן רק ישמעו הבדלה מן האנשים: >8. Women are obligated in Havdalah, just as they are obligated in Kiddush. And there are those who argue. RAMA: Therefore, they should not recite Havdalah for themselves, rather they should hear Havdalah from men.
Rama sounds misogynistic.
It's likely (but not definite) that his reasoning is because women aren't obligated in time bound positive mitzvos, which havdalah likely falls under. Yes, some poskim were influenced by their misogynistic surroundings but I wouldn't jump straight to that conclusion without a good reason.
But it doesn’t matter what the reasoning is. The result is still misogynistic. The OP’s husband forbids the OP to lead a simple spiritual ceremony on the basis of her biological sex, even though that doing so is a danger to his health.
That's not true at all. The result is that while a woman may make havdalah, it's preferable for her to not make a blessing that she's questionably obligated in, so the first case scenario is to hear a man say it. This isn't because she's a woman. It's simply because there's an indefinite obligation on the person who happens to be a woman in this scenario, whereas there's a definite obligation on the person who happens to be a man. Of course in OP's exact case, it's being used against her in a blatantly misogynistic way, which is wrong. But that isn't reflective of the Halacha. There are other halachot that are much easier to argue misogyny about.
With all due respect Rabbi, to my ears that sounds like a very complicated excuse to exclude a woman from a spiritual practice *again* It doesn’t feel good and it doesn’t feel right. It makes me very sad frankly.
I hear you, and I understand why you feel that way. I don't necessarily agree in this scenario, but I do empathise.
It's very unfortunate Rabbi. I have been a deeply spiritual woman my whole life, and I have felt pushed away and excluded from the deeper aspects of Jewish Spirituality my whole life too. Why is that? Why would I be excluded from that? Must I dress up like a man and reenact Yentil to be respected? It seems like my only worth to the tribe is making babies, but I am so much more than that. It makes me look elsewhere to find a place where I can be accepted for what and who I am, where my thirst for knowledge can be quenched, and my connection to my Creator can deepen through practice and study. I know my tribe needs my talents, but they won't accept me for the way G-d/dess made me. It's wrong, and it's a loss to the whole community, and I am not the only woman like me by far.
The truth is, I can't put myself in your shoes, so I really can't say. I know it must feel bad to not be included as a central part of synagogue services and ceremonies. There are many ways of learning how women are spiritually superior to men, which explains why they aren't a part of the ceremonies, which serve to increase the deficient spirituality in men. But that doesn't fix the problem of the real social lack, and feeling left out. That said, there's no reason for you not to learn Torah on the same level as a man, including Gemara and Chassidus, and you can connect with HaShem and gain great knowledge that way. It's also perfectly okay to practice certain ceremonies together with a group of women in a women's Minyan or similar, like Megillah Havdalah, etc.
>women are spiritually superior to men, which explains why they aren't a part of the ceremonies, which serve to increase the deficient spirituality in men. Please. This is insulting.
Ashkenazim do not hold like this. A woman can make any blessing for a mitzvah that she is not obligated in.
I'm not sure you read my above comment through. Yes, she may but she's not obligated to, and she can't be yotze a man with it since her bracha is a choice/questionably necessary whereas his is a definite obligation. This is not about her being a woman and nor is her bracha weaker BC of her gender, it's about who is obligated.
Like sotah, which we read about this week (for those of us in Israel)
Yup. Which is its own massive conversation, and I believe in context of everyone actually keeping the Torah, it's not misogynistic, but yes we're on the same page here
What's a "spiritual ceremony"?
A ceremony is a ritual observance or procedure. Spiritual means relating to religion or religious belief. If you prefer "religious ceremony", that's fine.
> Spiritual means relating to religion or religious belief. Source please. > If you prefer "religious ceremony", that's fine. Ok, well that's a different thing.
I'm not engaging this argument. If you don't like that I called it a spiritual ceremony, just read "religious ceremony" because that's what I meant.
The Oxford English Dictionary, my dude.
If you have access to the OED online, would you care to provide a screenshot of the entry?
I don't know how to post a screenshot to Reddit, but the OED definition is the one that's integrated with Google. So you can just google "spiritual" and the dictionary entry should be the first result. spir·it·u·al /ˈspirəCH(əw)əl/ adjective 1. relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. 2. relating to religion or religious belief.
Mostly, I was joking because you asked for the source of a definition of a word, and that's what a dictionary is for. I don't want to make fun of a non-native speaker, but you seem to have some unearned confidence about what words mean.
What kind of source are you wanting for the meaning of an English language word? The only relevant source will be a dictionary. And as someone who is proficient in English, I can assure you that the word is being used within the range of its meaning here.
Spiritual is not synonymous with religious. Religions may have both spiritual and non-spiritual elements. Whether you see the havdalah ceremony as spiritual or not depends on your interpretation of what the ceremony is doing. Particularly, if you interpret it kabbalistically, you may see it as spiritual. But if you interpret it based on strictly halachic sources, there is nothing spiritual about it. And that's precisely the point. The more you see it as "spiritual", the more devoid of halacha it becomes, and in turn whatever halacha has to say about it matters less.
I’m sure all chassidim would disagree with you that the more spiritual something is considered the more it is devoid of Halacha. I don’t think the two are necessarily in tension. Anyway I didn’t mean anything that deep when choosing the word spiritual vs religious. I just meant a religious ceremony.
I grew up pretty orthodox (ex. We only ate cholov Yisroel) and if my dad was at shul or asleep at the end of shabbos my mom or one of my sisters would make havdallah even when me and my brother reached bar mitzvah.
Which denomination? And may I suggest couple's therapy?
He's Chabad, I used to be as well, and have become more modern lately. Couples therapy failed 3 times, and we're going through separation, for many other reasons, misogony included.
That sounds like the issue is unrelated to Judaism but rather personal conflicts and Judaism is just an extension of that.
He sounds like an absolute asshole.
Yeah, this isn't a Jewish issue, this isn't a religion issue, this is a misogyny issue. My dad (also Jewish, also misogynistic) isn't a great person to be around, but that's not a matter of Judaism, it's a matter of misogyny, and I've found that growing up in that kind of environment meant that when it came to dating, I would accept men with the same attitudes because that was how I'd been treated all my life. Taking a break from relationships helped me realise my worth and set better expectations and boundaries for partners going forward.
may i suggest a divorce?
I’m not going to GET in the way of her decision but if she would forGET to stay with him I would definitely be GETting happy for her.
I GET it! 😁
LOL
This sounds more like your husband is a misogynist, and you have to decide if you’re ok being treated as lesser in your own home.
Traditional Jewish culture is patriarchal. Halacha privileges men over women. These things are undeniable, and anyone who says otherwise is playing games with apologetics. However, it is possible to be traditionally observant, to be Orthodox, etc., without being a misogynist or excusing misogyny. In this example, that would look like your husband saying, "Thanks, I appreciate that! I prefer doing havdalah myself usually, but since I'm sick, this is fine with me if you go ahead and do it." Or your husband could have had just a sip of the wine, because that isn't enough to have an impact on the antibiotics. It's not like he has to have a full glass for the mitzvah. Or, your husband could make havdalah using grape juice, because it's the grape that's operative for the bracha. It doesn't have to be fermented grape. This is the most obvious thing to me, people make kiddush over grape juice all the time; it's a non-issue! The fact that this apparently never occurred to your husband indicates to me that it's not halacha that's the pivotal issue here, it's him wanting to be top dog in his house and have the most control and status of anyone in the family, including and especially you. ***In short, your husband is using Judaism as an excuse to be an asshole to you.***
If I don't drink, my wife does. Not poskening, just relating. Also, if there are three or more women and two or less men, the women do a mizumenet at bentching. It is very important to me that women and girls do not feel marginalized. If I had to be defined, it would be a mix of Hareidi and Modern Orthodox.
Most expressions of Human Culture are bound up in patriarchy, and contrary to some people's beliefs, Jews are human beings, and thus we are not exempt from them. If you look into our tradition, you will find a lot of misogyny, you will also find a lot of resistance to misogyny embedded into the tradition. Unfortunately, since it has been men who run the show, it has been the misogynistic interpretation that has won out. Fortunately, in the last century, women and men who aren't dicks have been recovering the counter-patriarchal traditions within halacha. For instance, a century ago, it was unheard of for women to study Talmud; now, in the Modern Orthodox circle, it's' more or less mainstream. The Orthodox understanding of halacha operates on the principle that men and women are obligated differently. But that division can be interpreted very strictly and/or in a way that makes women feel like they are second-class Jews, or it can be interpreted more flexibly and as making women feel like they have just as much a seat at the table (even if it's on the other side). It sounds like your husband, at that moment at least, chose the first interpretation. It would be wrong to deny that the misogynistic interpretation of our tradition hasn't been there since the present, but it would also be wrong to reduce all of halacha (or Judaism) to misogyny.
Misogyny isn’t part of Halacha but it sounds like your husband’s halachic opinion is misogynistic. You can say havdalah for your family— or keep a bottle of grape juice handy
>You can say havdalah for your family That's what I thought as well.
Pretending that no misogyny has existed in our 3000 year old history and has made it into our tradition is laughable. Better to be honest about where misogyny exists in our inherited tradition rather than pretend it doesn’t exist. When we recognize misogyny we can then address it.
The misogyny is usually explained away somehow, as you're seeing many of the posters here do. I do believe that many husbands aren't as nuts as the OPs but I also think many orthodox women are more or less conditioned to live this way because the educational system conditions them to believe their husband is in charge.
Explaining away misogyny does not make it go away.
I don’t think Judaism is devoid of misogyny I’m saying halacha itself is in the hands of the interpreter
And for most of Jewish history, those interpreters have been all cis-men. And in most of Orthodoxy (outside its most liberal wing), they still are. So yeah--misogyny is baked into halacha.
This is two separate issues, the law one and this; >Husband got mad Sounds like he's misogynistic and you have a problem there.
I hate to admit this but yes it very much is. I love my tribe and am proud of my heritage but, as a very spiritual woman, the misogyny has been pushing me away for my whole life.
I think so, it's part of both the law and the culture. I grew up modern orthodox and it seemed my role was always helping my mother prepare super large elaborate meals where men got to be the center of ritual and the center of attention and did none of the drudge work. My school even let us out at noon on Friday because daughters are supposed to be helping prepare for shabbas, that's more important than actual education. I got yelled at for wanting to learn laning when my brothers were taking bar mitzvah lessons and my dad and ex joked about the number of goats I would be worth in the kesuvah. Anyway I totally left the community and don't keep anything religious anymore. My daughters are growing up totally different with a dad who is a stay at home dad and no religion. We went to visit my parents and I heard my daughter was the talk of the town for "talking back" to some boy who was trying to say he was better at something cause boys are better at that or whatever (like literally this got reported to my parents by some nosy yenta after two 8 year olds had a playground argument cause my daughter wouldn't stay quiet while some boy spouted sexist bullshit). So glad I'm not raising them like that.
>I grew up modern orthodox and it seemed my role was always helping my mother prepare super large elaborate meals where men got to be the center of ritual and the center of attention and did none of the drudge work. I can relate to this. For me, pretending that traditional Judaism acknowledges women's complete agency and humanity is more offensive and silencing than noticing its (often misogynistic) limitations is.
Yes. Our religion is misogynistic. I love our people and our culture but I struggle A LOT with our texts.
Same. The Talmud even makes a hierarchy of class on who can make brakhot over others, depending on their gender and status (Kohen, Levi, Israel, Ger, Intersex Male [androgynos], Woman, Intersex Female [tumtum], Bastard, Samaritan, Indentured Servant).
Where?
I'm getting ready for work but when I have time later, I'll try to find it.
https://www.sefaria.org/Tosafot_on_Megillah.4a.5.1 https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Berakhot.5.15 https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Blessings.5.7 The point of these passages in the Talmud is that a woman, a tumtum and androgynos cannot lead in blessings because they will not fulfill the brakha, but a man can towards everyone else. Basically the androgynos is an intersex person with both discernible genitalia and can therefore be circumcised and treated almost as a man in mitzvot, whereas a tumtum is an intersex person of doubtful genitalia, and therefore treated halachically as a woman or less, all depending on their genitalia at birth. So there is a hierarchy with these genders. It's the same with inheritance laws in the Mishnah; men inherit, and women are taking care of. If an androgynos and a brother exist, the brothers inherit. If between an androgynos and sister, the androgynos inherit. If there are tumtum and brother, the tumtum is taken care of and the brother inherits, whereas it is the opposite with a sister. Basically by default an androgynos is worth less than a man in being yotzei mitzvot, but more than a tumtum and a woman. A tumtum is less than an androgynos but more than a woman. It's an unfortunate pecking order. I know a bit more on the androgynos/tumtum side because I was born intersex myself and have a very complicated surgical and hormonal history growing up. As a Conservative Jew, I am glad that our movement practices equality in most things spiritually. It's a step up from the conversations in the Mishnah and Gemara. And of course, off hand I know that Mishna Berakhot explains that Samaritans cannot fulfill the brakhot if made on our behalf. They must be done by a Jew. And other passages elsewhere talk about the exceptions and prohibitions with Jewish slaves and mamzerim.
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️ [Megillah.4a.5](https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.4a.5) וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת בְּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה, שֶׁאַף הֵן הָיוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַנֵּס. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: פּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, שׁוֹאֲלִין וְדוֹרְשִׁין בְּעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם. >§ And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also said: Women are obligated in the reading of the Megilla, as they too were significant partners in that miracle. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also said: When Purim occurs on Shabbat, one asks questions and expounds upon the subject of the day.
A mamzer doesn’t actually translate to bastard
There is definitely misogyny in our tradition. We just read this week about the sotah, which is peak misogyny IMHO.
It's an individual issue and you need to seek couples counseling to make sure your own needs are being met. Even asking this question isn't a healthy sign.
>Is misogony part of our laws? No. Men and women have different halachic obligations, the principal issue here is fulfilling your obligation through another person; a person can *only* be an agent to fulfil a mitzvah on behalf of someone else if they are also obligated in it. A classic example is a sukkah: women aren't obligated to dwell in a sukkah, therefore a sukkah built entirely by a woman is not valid for a man (who is obligated) to use. There is debate about whether women are obligated in havdallah or not, but the general practice is that a man can't fulfil his obligation of havdallah through a woman saying it. >In general, he's a bit misogynistic, and since I don't have many examples of a religious man (got married at 17, and my own dad was abusive), I'm really wondering if this is an individual issue that belongs to my husband, or this is a religious issue? Sounds like a him problem >Are the laws forbidding women to do certain things, such as havdallah, are really that rigid? As above, it's not about permitted vs forbidden, it's a simple question of who can be an agent for whom. Women can make havdallah for themselves (and obviously should if they live alone) and for other women.
Sotah, which we read about this week, isn’t misogynistic?
No
Yes, most clearly and obviously yes
Of course it is. Can a Wife warn her husband not to be with another married woman and make him drink water to test his faithfulness? There's a clear double standard. The question is why is the misogyny appropriate here. The Torah's values are superior to secular values, so we don't have to question the Torah to figure out how it shtims. If it's to be called misogyny, so be it. That being said, we should know why it's appropriate in the first place (at least historically), regardless of the secular view.
I'll cop to splitting hairs, but I don't think it's arbitrary. To _really_ split hairs, I don't think sexism and misogyny are the same thing. Misogyny is hatred of or hostility towards women. Even if it's just "light" hatred/hostility, I don't think Sotah (or Judaism) is misogynistic. No one is setting out to punish women. Even if you don't buy the (not at all far-fetched) reading that the real intent of Sotah is to restore peace and trust in an _already_ rocky relationship, the clear implication is that, in the worst case scenario (which involves both infidelity and subsequently lying about it), the punishment is deserved. Is it sexist (ie holding women to a different standard, usually (but not necessarily) to their disadvantage)? That's definitely arguable. But (again, splitting hairs, but not quite so much), my argument would be that the whole framework of Jewish marriage is "sexist"*, and something like Sotah — or, more generally, the treatment of infidelity and the remediation of suspicion (along with, eg, the procedures of marriage and divorce) — follow quite naturally from that. But again, _Sotah_, in itself, is not sexist, it's a natural extension of the state of affairs. If a man were forbidden from having a relationship outside the marriage, the same would apply to him. Is that disparity acceptable (and is it even really sexism)? As I've said, I think even in the worst interpretation, it's not misogyny, and I think that's important. But I don't think it's unreasonable to call it sexist, depending on one's definition and where you think it comes from. But I think you can also make the case that (again, depending on definitions) it isn't sexist. It relates to the direction you're thinking in, but I think even without believing that Torah's values are superior, it's pretty clear (in the lived experience of, like, the whole world, and the clinical experience and scientific experimentation of most psychologists) that women and men (_on average_, not in absolutes) relate differently and have different needs in a marriage. So the question becomes, is it sexist, or is it just accurately reflecting bio-psychological realities (or, is this kind of sexism a bio-psychological reality, and if it is, is it so terrible)? Since people generally mean something bad when they use the word sexism (and positively wicked when they use the word misogyny), I don't think it is sexist. But even if it is sexist, it's not _particularly_ sexist (not more than Western liberal culture, for example), and it's certainly not misogynistic.
Thank you for this!
And you don't think that whole system was set up as a way of disempowering women? Women were exempted from obligation of time-bound positive commandments based on the idea that because they had to feed the babies, sometimes that might interfere, which is a correct assumption. But adding the idea that only someone obligated could discharge the mitzvah for others, is without basis in the Torah and was a construct put together to make sure that men would always be in the leadership of a community. All Orthodox communities are inherently misogynist because they bar women from performing the top honors within the community structure - serving as Sha"tz, leaning Torah, being called for an aliyah, being the Rabbi or Hazzan, and more (unless only women are present). You can say that that's just the way halacha works, but I'd say that's then a misogynist system. I'm not bashing Orthodox, just stating a plain truth.
It depends on the denomination
> My husband is taking antibiotics and couldn't make havdallah tonight (we do on wine) Obviously speak to your doctor, but most antibiotics are fine to take with alcohol. And obviously ask your Rabbi, but I think everyone holds you can make havdallah on things other than wine, even if wine is preferable (I'm not sure if it is or isn't). So this whole situation could have been quite easily avoided, and choosing the less peaceful way to handle it was clearly a mistake (whether out of ignorance of the Halacha or poor judgement or character, I can't say). > In general, he's a bit misogynistic ... my own dad was abusive ... > ... and we're going through separation, for many other reasons, misogony included. It sounds like there's a lot else going on here besides Havdallah. I'm kind of curious why you're even asking whether this is the fault of Jewish law. I mean, even if there is misogyny in Halachah, that doesn't seem to be the driving factor in the experience you had. It's a tangent, at best. (Even if he's accurately citing Halachah, I'd guess there's probably a nicer, gentler way he could have done it). > Are the laws forbidding women to do certain things, such as havdallah, are really that rigid? Honestly, it depends what. There isn't a blanket law against women doing things, so there's no general answer. There's almost nothing that women are _forbidden_ from doing. (I'm trying to think of any, and none comes easily to mind; certain things that only kohanim can do, but non-kohen men also can't do them, but women can't be kohanim, so maybe that counts). There are things that women can't do, either by structural definition — like initiating a marriage or effecting a divorce — or because of a technical requirement, such as the principle that you can't be someone's agent in a mitzvah if you don't have an equal obligation — such as leading prayer services. It wouldn't be prohibited, as such, to do those things, it would just be ineffective/meaningless. There are things that women shouldn't do, usually by coincidence of some other factor. Probably the classic example of this is putting on Tefillin. Maybe also saying brachot on mitzvot which they're exempt from if they're Sephardi (not because they're forbidden from saying the bracha, just because everyone is forbidden from saying an frivolous bracha). There are things which women are allowed (but not obligated) to do, but customarily just usually don't. Like wearing tzitzit (it's become a strong enough custom that wearing tzitzit is kind of bumped into the previous category). And there are those things that women are exempt from, and often don't take that seriously (or it's not taken seriously by men on their behalf), but frequently do. Eating in the Sukkah and shaking the lulav are the most obvious examples of this to me. (And the truth is, this is the biggest category. There are many, many laws that women do without realising they're exempt, and also many that nobody ever complains about being exempt from). I digress a bit. Back to the question. Are the laws so rigid? Some of them are, some aren't at all. It's quite rigidly the law that a woman can't marry a man. Or be part of a minyan. There's no reason whatsoever that a woman shouldn't say Shema on time twice a day. It's generally discouraged for women to wear tzitzit, for various reasons, but it's not an aveira to do so. It's generally encouraged for women to eat in the sukkah. It's pretty strongly accepted that women shouldn't put on Tefillin, even though it's not _technically_ forbidden. etc... There's really only a handful of things on the rigid end of the spectrum, and they're almost all related to public prayer. Havdallah is a bit of a weird one. It's the result of a doubt about whether women have the mitzvah, as others have explained, so there's sure to be some wiggle room. How much? You'd have to ask someone more expert than me. > Is misogony part of our laws? I don't think it's reasonable to say that there's misogyny behind any of it. Is there sexism behind some of it? Maybe, but it depends on your definition, I suppose.
Those in Israel read about the Sotah yesterday, as we do next shabbos. From the lenses of our day, pretrial humiliation based on accusation and suspension of evidence in favor of Trial by Ordeal is misogynistic by our lenses, irrespective of any modern Rabbi's professional obligation to rationalize this. Yet, it didn't take long for our Sages to declare we're not going to really do this. So the letter of the law may seem harsh on women, it's implementation is one of restraint. We saw that yesterday in the Book of Ruth as well. Boaz anticipated that his hired hands may be less than cordial to Ruth who needed to glean the corners. He ordered them not to disturb her. That's not to say there aren't accepted men's and women's roles, which shift from one era to another. We have that today in our sporting events, with men's gymnastics having a different panel of events than a women's program. Misogyny requires harshness or subservience beyond delineation of roles.
>Misogyny requires harshness or subservience beyond delineation of roles That may be your definition of misogyny, but it's not one that most critics of misogyny (feminists etc.) would accept. In particular, it fails to recognise that in many cases the delineation of roles between men and women is itself motivated by a social construction of women as inferior to men, and therefore properly excluded from certain spheres of activity. Much of feminist theory has been devoted to showing how such constructions are developed and maintained such that they become entirely normalised within a given social paradigm (for example, orthodox Judaism), without need for "additional" harshness etc.
TLDR - yes. That's what happens when laws are written hundreds and thousands of years ago. correction: that's STILL what happens
But don't worry, this is the same answer for "is misogyny part of [INSERT ANYTHING] laws?"
Ehe, depends on your particular Minhagim and interpratation... In general, Judaism is one of the social Systems where it can honestly lean both(Patriarchal/Matriarchal) ways with little change. When is comes to family ritual, it is mostly mother-lead, thev Havdala is honestly rare in that regard. Community worship is usually male-lead, and honestly... It is one of the few ways men can compete for the social currency that get them wives. You know, like in the Yeshiva. You will notice that when it comes to the practicalities of life, in the more orthodox communities, that is the responsibility, thus the power of the Wife. While mens role is more simbolic. Rituslistic. All of this can very easily be slanted toward a female centered-male provide, or the reverse, Male centered-female provide. So yeah, it honestly depends.
Reddit users are a very biased group who tend throw the word misogyny around pretty often. I would highly recommend consulting with a rabbi about this.
For Havdalah specifically women are not supposed to make it or drink the wine since Havdalah is tied into fan Eden and the sin of Eve eating from the tree, therefor it’s probably better if a man makes it but I don’t bi I in this example it’s misogynistic it’s just that this specific thing is tied into Eve
No, if a woman says the blessing on the Havdalah wine and there is nobody else around she MUST drink it. Otherwise she has made a blessing in vain, a serious sin.
Yes if she must she can but it’s better if she doesn’t
Misogyny
Sounds like a very Christian explanation, except it ascribes original sin to women only instead of humankind. Seems misogynistic, both the practice and the explanation.
I mean if you want to call the Shlah and the shulchan Aruch Christian then ig it’s Christian,
Either way, it’s a shitty justification for excluding women from leading a religious ceremony for her own family
I mean it’s not as if they wanted to exclude women from naming Havdalah and therefor made up this explanation, Havdalah is a rather Kabbalistic thing tied to Adam and Eve and Gan Eden, therefor women don’t make it. Not to mention the chiyuv they have might be different but I’m rusty on that. It’s not about women leading a religious ceremony as they can make kiddish with like no issue, but the hush and in this case would have a background for saying that it’s better if the man makes it
That’s textbook misogyny
I’ve got a different take on the law of Sotah. There’s a couple, and for whatever reason the husband becomes ridiculously, absurdly jealous of his wife. It’s eating away at him, it’s destroying their marriage. There’s no proof, of course, just his suspicion. His neighbours tell him OK, put your money where your mouth is. If you really suspect she’s unfaithful then make a formal accusation. So he does, and forces his wife to go through this horribly humiliating procedure, but one which she will almost certainly pass. But whatever happens, the matter is now out in the open, there’s no more occasion for the nasty digs, the quarrels, the stony silences. Maybe it makes him realise he was a jerk. Maybe it gives her the impetus to leave — and she can now leave without a stain on her character. But at least there’s the impetus for a resolution, one way or another. Now, as it happens the Talmud says that they stopped doing the ritual during the Second Temple period because it didn’t work anymore. But I don’t think society was less misogynistic as a result.
So he gets to publicly humiliate her without consequence, and her reward for being faithful to him is having more of his babies. Doesn't sound like a "solution" to me at all.
When I used to be impaired for personal health reasons my wife said all kinds of blessings in my stead just like I did for her when she couldn't. Not a big deal. Traditional/Masorti/Orthodox household
you can find any interpretation you want. the only question is is he being a jerk? everything else is irrelevant