radical Modern Orthodox activist crowd

There will be exceptions but I wouldn't expect any dialogue with these people. Many are ideologues on these issues. And as R' Berel Wein puts it "You should never argue with an ideologue because his is always right." The moment you even attempt to discuss marriage or divorce with an eye towards justice or decency for men they lose it. They are coming from a secular perspective that the Torah is bad for women and just wonderful for men in every way and they must do everything in their power to correct that. And any man who ever, ever for a second advocates for himself or for his kids is obviously a monster and a demon to be shunned and shamed. The logic is simply that since men have it great then any attempt to advocate for any man in any situation is obviously an act of patriarchy and an initiative for even more male domination. They are quite sure of this so there's nothing to discuss and certainly not with the likes of you. Interestingly the men are much more vehement than the women, who for the most part are more reasonable if a bit hysterical. Even though their group allegedly works for social justice it really only considers social justice for certain types of people. White Jewish males aren't considered. Again, they take their queues from secular liberalism. If you put the words men and rights in the same sentence you trigger the kinds of reactions that the word feminism did 75 years ago. My suggestion is that you look at radical Modern Orthodox advocacy groups as a different religion. Dealing with them is the equivalent of ecumenical dialogue. Would you debate Orthodox Jewish marriage with a Christian? Would you discuss it with a Reconstructionist Jew? There are tremendous rifts in the Orthodox world today and it seems more and more that the different sides should just stay away from other. They need a divorce. Hopefully, the radical Modern Orthodox activist crowd will not withhold the get.

a myth

This idea that women are more spiritual than men in Torah thought is a myth. The Baal Magen Avraham says that women are exempt from time bound mitzvos because the woman's yetzer tov is smaller. (See Zies Ra'anan, Yalkut Shimoni, Shmuel 1:1) The Maharal says in many places that men are more spiritual and are on a higher plane. (Tiferes Yisrael 4 and 28, Derech Chaim on "more wives more witchcraft") The Gemara says one who goes about in the counsel of his wife goes to gehenim. (Baba M. 59a) R' Moshe Feinstein says that we are equally holy. He also says that we have mitzvos because of our holiness and not the reverse. So why are women exempt from some of the them, to raise the kids. (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim IV, 49 and Darash Moshe, Volume II, p. 154, Vayikra, Kedoshim) R' Joseph Soloveitchik says once you say both sexes are created in G-d's image, you can't say one is better than the other. The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 142-3

What about Sarah? R' Avigdor Miller says that Avraham was her rebbe. Her prophecy was higher because his was affected by being out in public. Tape 412, True Modesty, 1:10:25

The Netziv says his prophecy was higher and the midrash was talking about ruach hakodesh, which is affected by being out in public.

What about other positive statements of Chazal about women? They are positive statements pointing out positive aspects. But we shouldn't get carried away with them. Each sex has its good and bad.
I want to suggest that the author look deeper and think deeper into this topic and the ramifications of his approach. Think what it does to marriages if the wife looks at the man as if he is a nonspiritual wild animal.

Better to just say we are equal but different.

Other authorities that either explicitly or implicitly contradict the notion of generally higher spirituality in the female include Rambam, Mishnah Horarios 3:7; Tur, Orach Chaim 46; Akeidas Yitzchak, Bereishis 6; Bartenura, Mishnah Horarios 3:7; Taz, Orach Chaim 46; Zies Ra'anan (Magen Avraham), Yalkut Shemoni, Shmuel 1:1; Vilna Gaon, Even Shelaima 1:8; Baal Shevet Musar, Midrash Talpiyos, Ohs Aleph, Anaf Isha; Rav Tzadock Rabinowitz, Dover Tzedeck, p. 119; R' Avraham Yitzchak Kook, Olas Re'iah, Birchos ha-shachar; R' Moshe Feinstein, Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim IV, 49; R' Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Man of Faith in the Modern World, (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989), p. 84; Lubavitcher Rebbe, Sichos in English, Iyar-Tammuz 5744, Vol. 21, pp. 69-72; R' Avigdor Miller, Rabbi Avigdor Miller Speaks, (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah), pp. 245-246 .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Rav Moshe Feinstein on holiness being a precondition for the commandments

"The mitzvah of You shall be holy, which is followed by a recitation of several of the fundamental mitzvos, is not of the same type as the mitzvos that follow it. This mitzvah means that every Jew should realize that he is sanctified with the holiness of the Jew, and it is only because of that holiness that we were given the Torah and obligated to do the mitzvos. As I have often written, mitzvos cannot be fulfilled properly unless the doer has the holiness of the Jew. The Kohanim, who have additional mitzvos, must have the particular holiness of Kohanim. This is why we make a blessing before mitzvos and say, "Who has sanctified us with His mitzvos"; and Kohanim, before doing mitzvos that are limited to Kohanim, say, "Who has sanctified us with the sanctity of Aharon." The expression "Who has sanctified us with His mitzvos" should not be misunderstood as meaning that mitzvos are the source of the sanctity. It is self-understood that the sanctity the blessing refers to is the underlying sanctity of every Jew -- that which enables us to fulfill the mitzvos."

Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt'l, Darash Moshe, Volume II, p. 154, Vayikra, Kedoshim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: We see in the case of Rabbi Akiva that a woman can affect the man. How is the reverse and to what extent?

Is the question can a man affect a woman? Certainly. Certainly. What do you think made Sarah great? Here Sarah became a great naviah. כֹּל אֲשֶׁר תֹּאמַר אֵלֶיךָ שָׂרָה, שְׁמַע בְּקֹלָה Avraham was told listen to Sarah. And Avraham is called a tefel b'navuah to Sarah.  That doesn't mean Avraham was less. Avraham was a bigger navi. Only Avraham was always in the street arguing with people. And when you argue you get excited so the schinah is not always able to rest on you. Sarah was magayeres es hanashim in her own home . So Sarah lived a tranquil life and therefore the navuah could come upon her more frequently.  But Sarah was the result of Avraham's tutelage. Avraham was her rebbe, no question.

Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Tape 412, True Modesty, 1:10:25

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The Chumash in Bereishis says that when God created man בצלם אלקים ברא אתם . Man and woman were created in the Image of God. Equality was taken for granted. If two personae were created in the image of God, you cannot say one is superior to the other.” (R' Joseph Soloveitchik, The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 142-3)

a problem with shiduchim

Question was asked on yeshiva world news if taking a walk is acceptable for a date. Woman writes in

I’m female and in shidduchim. I’ve been on a walk as a first date and was fine with it, but here are some tips:
1. Don’t go if it’s very cold.
2. If you want to go on a walk, tell her that’s the plan before the date so she knows to wear flats instead of heels.
3. Check in the day of the date to make sure she’s still ok with it—like “funnybone” says, she may have had a long day and be too tired.
4. Always offer to stop and buy a drink. You can go into a Duane Reade and buy a soda/water/seltzer. It only takes a few minutes and shows you’re aware of the fact that she’s probably thirsty after walking for a while.

Dating should not be so focused on making sure the girl is so comfy. We all need to toughen up a bit.

chapter 14 rambam

A woman who withholds marital intimacy from her husband is called a moredet ("a rebel"). She is asked why she has rebelled. If she answers: "Because I am repulsed by him and I cannot voluntarily engage in relations with him," her husband should be compelled to divorce her immediately. For she is not like a captive, [to be forced] to engage in relations with one she loathes.14

[In such an instance, as part of] the divorce [settlement], she does not receive any of the money promised her in her ketubah.15 She is entitled to whatever remains of the possessions she brought into the marriage arrangement, both those for which her husband assumed responsibility and those for which he did not assume responsibility - i.e., nichsei m'log.16

She is not entitled to anything that belongs to her husband. She should remove even the shoe on her foot and her head-covering that he gave her and return them to him. [Similarly,] she should return to him any presents that he gave her. For he did not give them to her with the intent that she take them and [leave his home].

ח

האשה שמנעה בעלה מתשמיש המטה היא הנקראת מורדת ושואלין אותה מפני מה מרדה. אם אמרה מאסתיהו ואיני יכולה להבעל לו מדעתי כופין אותו לשעתו לגרשה לפי שאינה כשבויה שתבעל לשנוא לה ותצא בלא כתובה כלל ותטול בלאותיה הקיימין בין מנכסים שהכניסה לבעלה ונתחייב באחריותן בין מנכסי מלוג שלא נתחייב באחריותן. ואינה נוטלת בשל בעל כלום ואפילו מנעל שברגליה ומטפחת שבראשה שלקחן לה פושטת ונותנת לו וכל מה שנתן לה מתנה מחזרת אותו שלא נתן לה על מנת שתטול ותצא:

9

[Different rules apply, however,] if she rebelled against her husband with the intent of causing him distress,17saying: "I intend to cause him distress this way, because he did this or this to me," "...because he cursed me," "...because he has caused me strife," or the like, she is sent a messenger from the court, [who] tells her: "Take note. If you continue your rebellious conduct, you will forfeit your ketubah, even if it is worth one hundred maneh."18

Afterwards, announcements are made concerning her in the synagogues and the houses of study each day for four consecutive weeks,19 saying: "So and so has rebelled against her husband."20

ט

ואם מרדה מתחת בעלה כדי לצערו ואמרה הריני מצערת אותו בכך מפני שעשה לי כך וכך או מפני שקללני או מפני שעשה עמי מריבה וכיוצא בדברים אלו. שולחים לה מבית דין ואומרין לה הוי יודעת שאם את עומדת במרדך אפילו כתובתך מאה מנה הפסדת אותה. ואחר כך מכריזין עליה בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות בכל יום ארבע שבתות זו אחר זו ואומרים פלונית מרדה על בעלה:

10

After the announcement has been made, the court sends her a messenger a second time. He tells her: "If you continue your rebellious conduct, you have forfeited your ketubah." If, nevertheless, she continues this conduct and does not retract, she is consulted by the court. [If she does not change her mind,] she then forfeits her ketubahand has no rights to a ketubah at all.21

She is not given a divorce until twelve months pass.22During these twelve months, [her husband is] not [required] to provide for her subsistence. If she dies before being divorced, her husband inherits her [property].

י

ואחר ההכרזה שולחין לה ב"ד פעם שנייה ואומרים לה אם את עומדת במרדך הפסדת כתובתיך. אם עמדה במרדה ולא חזרה נמלכין בה ותאבד כתובתה ולא יהיה לה כתובה כלל. ואין נותנין לה גט עד י"ב חדש ואין לה מזונות כל י"ב חדש. ואם מתה קודם הגט בעלה יורשה:

11

This is the sequence followed with regard to a woman who rebels [against her husband] in order to cause him distress. These laws apply even when the woman is in the niddah state or when she is ill and is not fit to engage in sexual relations. Similarly, they apply even when her husband is a seaman whose conjugal duties are only once in six months, and even when [her husband] has another wife.23

יא

כסדר הזה עושין לה אם מרדה כדי לצערו. ואפילו היתה נדה או חולה שאינה ראויה לתשמיש ואפילו היה בעלה מלח שעונתו לששה חדשים ואפילו יש לו אשה אחרת:

12

Similarly, when the time comes for an arusah to enter nisu'in,24 and she refuses to do so, rebelling in order to cause [her husband] distress, she is considered to be one who rebels [and refuses to engage] in marital relations. Similarly, the above sequence is followed when a yevamah refuses to undergo yibbum in order to cause [her yavam] distress.25

יב

וכן ארוסה שהגיע זמנה להנשא ומרדה כדי לצערו ולא נשאת הרי זו מורדת מתשמיש. וכן יבמה שלא רצתה להתיבם כדי לצערו כסדר הזה עושין לה:

13

When this woman who rebels is divorced after twelve months without receiving [any of the money due her because of] her ketubah, she must also return everything that belongs to her husband.

With regard to the property that she brought to [the marriage arrangement] and what remains [of her trousseau, different rules apply].26 If she takes physical possession of these articles, they are not taken from her, but if her husband takes physical possession of them,27they are not taken from him. Similarly, her husband is not held liable for anything that has been lost from her possessions for which he accepted responsibility.28 This is the law prescribed by the Talmud with regard to a woman who rebels [against her husband].

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/952888/jewish/Ishut-Chapter-Fourteen.htm

No Secular Court

from Rav Gustman, Artscroll Biography by David Page

A MARRIED STUDENT IN THE YESHIVAH HAD A DISPUTE with his neighbor about the ownership of a machsan, a basement storage unit. The neighbor had sued the student in secular court in Eretz Yisrael without bothering to take him to beis din. The only witness in the case was a woman, whose testimony favored the student. This testimony would be accepted and entirely resolve the matter in secular court but not in beis din, where the halachic guideliness regarding testimony apply. A young Rav advised the student to simply accept the summons to secular court and rely on the witness's testimony, indicating that because the neighbor had chosen secular court the student had no obligation to go to a beis din.

The talmid posed the question to R' Gustman who responded that, on the the contrary, everything should be done to convince the neighbor to litigate the case in beis din. The Rosh Yeshiva added,
"It is irrelevant whether you would be more likely to win secular court. If you would be more likely to lose in beis din, and you lose there, it is the will of Heaven that you lose.

David Page, "Rav Gustman," p. 174, Artscroll Biography of R' Yisrael Zeev Gustman, the youngest Dayan of Vilna.

Milah and Length of Purification Period

"The day when the father performs milah, the first duty a man must perform for his son, should imbue the father with the sacred resolve to "raise his son to walk in moral strength before God, the God of the Law," and to serve his son, by his own conduct, as a model for such a way of life. Similarly, the fact that the woman's path to purity following the birth of a daughter is twice as long as after the birth of a son certainly should serve to impress the mother with all the solemnity and grandeur of her own task to become teacher, guide and model for the Jewish woman of the future. After all, the mothers' influence in the molding the moral standards of her daughter is twice as great as her influence on the moral development to her son. With sons, the main thrust of their training comes from the father, to whom they can look as a model for the own future male role. With daughters, on the other hand, the mother is not only their role model but also the molder of their character, so that after the birth of each daughter she will do well to prepare herself with redoubled intensity, both for her own sake and for the sake of her newborn daughter, in order that the both may ascend the lofty path or purity and morality to the heights of God's own idea of holiness." R' Samson Raphael Hirsch, Vaykira 12: 4-5, The Chumash, Judaica Press, Gertrude Hirschler translator.

High Threshold for a Get

THE LEVEL OF SENSITIVITY TO THE PEOPLE OVER WHOM HE had responsibility, the level of creativity, and the level of wisdom that R' Gustman was called on to employ, both as the Rabbi of Shnipishok and as dayan, were high. This was especially so because the young rabbi was being supervised by one of the most sensitive, creative, and wise poskim of his time, R' Chaim Ozer. He learned from R' Chaim Ozer that apparent "common sense" and the" obvious" do not always lead to the halachically correct result.

R' Gustman related a lesson he learned from R' Chaim Ozer in that regard, concerning the high bar for issuing a get. The story the Rosh Yeshiva told was as follows:

In Shnipishok, well-known in his community, lived a couple notorious for their acrimonious and vociferous fighting that could be heard in the neighborhood on any given day. After a few years of fierce battling, the couple decided to divorce and they came to R' Gustman for the get during the very early years of R' Gustman's tenure there.

R' Gustman, who was then still a young rabbi, was sure that this ill-suited, unhappy couple were prime candidates for divorce, and with that attitude, he mentioned the case to R' Chaim Ozer, who asked to speak to the couple themselves. Afterward, R' Chaim Ozer's reply was sharp and unequivocal: "They should certainly not be divorced. Absolutely not."

This response came as a shock to R' Gustman. He remonstrated, "But they are unhappy and fight all the time! Everyone in the town knows how they go at it! Who could be unhappier in a marriage than they are? Who could be more appropriate candidates for the institution of divorce due to sheer unhappiness?"

"We go by the rov [majority]," replied R' Chaim Ozer. "Let us do the calculation together: For eight hours a night, they are asleep and do not fight with each other. Then, the husband is gone all day for at least ten hours, working, praying, etc., during which time they also do not fight. Then there is time they spend alone in the bathroom, again without quarreling. During all of these times throughout the day, they do not fight. Therefore, the actual time they are alone with each other to fight on a daily basis cannot be more than twenty minutes. We go by the rov. Since most of the time, they do not fight, they are not candidates for divorce. It is not worth issuing a get for twenty minutes of fighting."

From this calculation of R' Chaim Ozer's, R' Gustman, as a young rabbi, learned the lesson of the high standard required for breaking up a Jewish marriage. It was this rule he followed as a dayan and later as a Rav and Rosh Yeshivah.

David Page, "Rav Gustman," pp. 81-82, Artscroll Biography of R' Yisrael Zeev Gustman, the youngest Dayan of Vilna.

[I think what's going on here is that he met the couple and could see that nothing extraordinary was happening, that neither of them were insane. They were just two people that needed to work on their middos and learn to control their mouths. The talk about rov is just a cute way of saying, look you are not together all that much, can you just control yourselves for 20 minutes a day? To let you get a divorce would be playing to your yetzer haras and destroying your children and we can't allow that.]