Halacha and Chess

‘Halacha’ is ‘the way’ of Judaism, based on millenia old oral tradition, translated into many forms:  stories, law, traditions, values, arguments, responsa, and a general ‘language game’ or ‘way of life’

More narrowly conceived, it refers to ‘piskei halacha’ – the end of halacha – or its practical ramifications as expressed in various law codes such as Mishneh Torah, Shulchan Aruch and Mishna Berura.  It is the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ of a life that attempts to be lived in the presence of G-d.  It is the rules ones abides by when trying to be part of the game.

Some people – left and right religiously – often talk about a halachic framework: 

Those on the right often use it to forbid. Flexibility is only allowed within ‘the framework’ of halacha.  There is  a sausage machine out of which comes ‘the rules’ [as they currently are] and such a framework will produce rules that are good to follow. Codification is not an output of history, question and response, debate or a way of living; but its input.  It is not just the rules that are prescriptive (with the codification describing those prescriptions as they stand) but the codification is itself prescriptive.

Those on the left believe there are values which ones seeks to achieve, but as one is a religious Jew, one [is limited to?][aided by?] doing it within the framework. There are no fixed boundaries and no sausage machine.  Rather as a ‘framework’; it provide a general way a Jew does things. Rather than forbidding, one navigates the form and technicalities of the game to do something new.

I find this way of talking about things odd though – talking about the game from the outside-in.  It is as if I was a ‘right wing’ chess player I were to unprompted say:

• “I am going to moving my bishop and I am doing so within the framework of the game of chess”  [Well, duh, we are in the middle of a chess game, so “I am moving the bishop” will suffice were it be necessary to comment at all]
• “By applying the rules in the rulebook to the pieces on the board, I should move my bishop diagonally – that is a good move.” [No doubt I am following the rules of chess, but that doesn’t require any view of its necessity or extrinsic goodness of the move considered outside of what I am trying to achieve in so moving]

Or, if I were a ‘left-wing’ chess player:

• “Check-mating the opponent is a good thing to do but because I’m bought into the rules of chess, I’m limited to achieving that through traditional chess moves, such as the diagonal bishop-move” [Do you think the end-state of chess is completely stateable outside the rules of chess, which are just aids or impediments to that goal?  I’d probably think you weren’t actually that interested in chess itself] 
•  “The framework of chess has had different rules for bishops that have changed over time – so I’m going to play a move codified in 13th century Italy” [Quite possibly that is within the framework of chess, but you if you moved your piece in that way, you may find yourself playing a different game to your opponent]

It is not that either is wrong – just weird.

From the outside one might want to write a philosophy of chess, a love poem to chess, a history of chess, a political analysis of chess within authoritarian regimes.  A meta-chess analysis if you will.  All useful endeavours.

However, if someone challenges you to a game of chess, you may not want to play a game within the framework of chess, you may just want to play chess.

The Role of a Posek

The Torah Temimah, Rabbi Baruch haLevi Epstein, said the following:

"One does not need to be a great talmid chochom... to give a severe psak.... But it takes unusual talent, abundant wisdom and understanding, and a great spirit for someone to give a psak lekulah.”

Here he is outlining what a key characteristic of a halachic decisor is, according to his father- the author of the Aruch haShulchan. These words are not an unusual thing to hear in and of itself- in fact, I've heard religious people say it a lot as a general principle. However, I usually hear it in the context of forbidding something! "Yes, it is probably halachically permissible but it takes a great rabbi to be lenient- so you can't do it". Often we hear the false modesty that no rabbi in this generation is great enough to do so. In other words, it is used as an excuse not to toil in Torah to make a Jew's life easier, not an imperative to do so!

Nothing could be further from the way of the Aruch haShulchan! He was specifically diverted from producing chiddushim in Torah to being a posek by a talmid of the Vilna Gaon, in order to save Jewish people anguish and monetary loss. Here is the Torah Temimah's recollections of his father:

Words cannot describe the exhaustive, almost painful effort my father expended in order to find some heter for any she'ala that came before him. Unless it was specifically stated in the Talmud or poskim that one must be stringent, he would try to find a lenient psak for even the most serious question. Where a loss of money was involved.. or hospitality to guests was involved, he would increase his efforts tenfold, leaving no stone unturned to find some way to permit the she'ala.

While we are at it, who would give the answer R' Chaim Soloveitchik did as to the role of a rabbi?:

to address the grievances of those who are abandoned and alone, to protect the dignity of the poor, and to save the oppressed from the hands of his oppressor

What is Hamas?

Theft is Hamas.  Murder is Hamas. Taking women simply because they are 'fair' is Hamas. Brutality to creatures with inferior strength to your own is Hamas.  Eating meat (outside of sacrificial use) is technically Hamas.

Hamas, in a funny turn of events, is  a halachic category that encompasses all the sins above: 

This going after something which is beyond one's jurisdiction and ontic sphere is called hamas.  Hamas is the universal act of interfering with somebody else's right and prerogatives, usurping something that is not mine, the act of overreaching oneself and reaching out to the non-self. (Soloveitchik, EEM, 33)

And what is the biggest act of Hamas?

Murder is hamas, for if I rob another person of his life which was granted to him by G-d... [he] takes illegitimate possession of divine rights. (Soloveitchik, EEM, 43)

Now, names are certainly signs in identifying the spiritual characteristic of the thing named.  This leads us to ponder which organisation we know whose acts fall under the sin that is Hamas?

An honest religious thinker...

I

Once more, there is a beautiful quote from Wittgenstein that perfectly summarises the status of religion today:

An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it.

The intellectual conditions, as such, for religious belief have never changed. Only the social conditions have. Ultimately religion isn't based on evidence for the probability that it is true. In fact, it is of the very essence that it is not. The question as to whether we accept the 'yoke of heaven' or not is firmly on our shoulders. Of course, I'm not saying the choice is arbitrary; 'How we act' very much depends on what how we take the world to be. However, Judaism stresses the 'limits of reason' and no reason will force us one way or the other. Ultimately one has to make a decision- do I see the world like this or like that?

This is precisely the Jewish concept of free-will. Reason cannot intellectually arbitrate between what Christian/secular culture denotes by 'theism' and 'atheism' (No religious Jew could be an atheist or a theist). Thus, one can't adequately conclude such a discussion before deciding how to act. The 'yetzer hara' (evil inclination) can always reinterpret the facts to justify what it wants without being irrational. I won't believe I have to do x, y or z, unless I have an 'ultimate reason', a 'proof' that I have to.

Rationality, so religion tells us, doesn't go 'all the way down'. What I mean by this can be illustrated by the following:

[A scientist gave a lecture about astronomy]. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

What's supports the world? A turtle. What supports the turtle? Another turtle. What supports that?... and so on. Ultimately, you can (and should) give reasons for what you believe. Religion is not for the intellectually frail. However, on the one hand, there is no bottom turtle- one which you cannot ask what supports it. In philosophical parlance, there is no indubitable belief that lies at the bottom of our knowledge claims. There is no 'basic belief' from which you can argue outwards from, or inwards to. On the other hand, our finite minds can't intellectually settle for for infinite turtleness! We cannot justify our claims by a premise that lies infinitely far away.

So what to do? Ultimately, we have to rely on practical rationality. Whilst we can be intellectually agnostic, in practice we have to live a secular life or a religious one. The choice is not one between atheism and theism (the search for the bottom turtle) but between being an Ish ha-Elokim (man of G-d) or an Apikorus (one who mocks the sages). Through the actions we choose we are committing to interpreting the world as an expression of divine creation or as mechanical entity without moral consequence. Either we see the Mesora (Jewish tradition) as divine order or a human creation.

II

As I say, this has always been the way. So why does it now appear that we are "walking on nothing but air"? There are two reasons. Firstly, people in bygone eras (practically) related to the world as if it were enchanted. This was one in which the world was controlled by powers that lay outside of our understanding. The world- so to speak- had a personality. From a Jewish perspective, this isn't unanimously seen as positive. It was such a view that led to the prevalence of avodah zara (untranslatable! strange worship). People who couldn't understand why the sun did what it did began to attribute it as an independent power (a god). Whether we should, in a limited way, believe in an enchanted world depends on which view of Judaism you take (Rambam/ Malbim vs. Ramban/ HaLevi) and both have merits.

Nevertheless, when holding such a view, it is obvious to believe in the supernatural. It is natural and woven into the very fabric of your being. In a post Cartesian and Newtonian world, this is no longer so. The major change was not theoretical per se- both Descartes, Newton and many after them were firm believers in G-d. Instead, they affected a change in the very way we see the world. Everything is there to be intellectually conquered, brought into our understanding, control and subdued. We are suddenly in a world where something beyond our grasp becomes instinctively alien. With such a mindset one can passionately believe in G-d but it's a decision that is against the grain. One always had to make a decision but its now more like a leap

I suppose a simpler way of putting that (although it misses some of the subtleties) is that it is very counter-cultural to believe in G-d so seems to require more justification. Yet as I said above, there is nothing one can point to that 'settles the matter' that would compel you to accept it (esp. if you were looking for ways not to believe). Hence tightrope.

III

The second reason is that- as Jews- we no longer live in self-governing communities governed by halacha. We now seem to require a justification for the institution itself. Previously the keeping of halacha, in the public realm at least, was de facto- it just was what happened. It was the base or practical starting point from which all decisions or philosophizing began.

Even from such a social position there is a role for the free intellectual and moral decisions laid out above. First of all, there was taking upon oneself all the obligations that were not of specific concern to the public order. It is unlikely that in times past, many people were shomer mitzvot (kept the commandments) in the way explicated by the rabbis in their academies. However, let's assume by habit or instruction they did. We are taught that free will isn't only about the keeping of commandments, but performing them with kavanna (the right intention). This directly depends on how we take the halacha- divine order or human creation? One may keep it out of habit or only keeping it where one has to avoid the wrath of the authorities (Beth Din). On the other hand, one perform an action with the awareness that it is is mitzvah from G-d. However, no intellectual premise could lead one to this awareness.

So what is the difference today when Jews are growing up secular? Again, we could just highlight the obvious practical consideration that a) it seems a bigger leap to decide to keep halacha in the first place than to do what you already do with more kavannah b) to decide to keep halacha is harder when it is counter-cultural and c) whilst no-one in the past would have doubted that halacha should govern society, one now is asked for justification.

However, this might be misleading. It is not that they didn't realise the 'tightrope' nature of the justifications for halachic practice because they happened not to ask! Instead, to a certain extent it was unnecessary to do so! The whole life of the community was built around the rhythm and pulse of the religious life. One could see a practical manifestation of G-d's will in the world. One could be inspired by tzadikim- living Torah scrolls. And so on. Of course, one could use free will to see things in a different way but there was a living testament to the fact that we are a 'wise and understanding people'. Nowadays, without being born inside such a society, we can only look at it externally. From the outside, without the testament, why halacha?

IV

But, as Wittgenstein says, despite the fact that "His support is the slenderest imaginable.... it really is possible to walk on it" The reason being that in Wittgenstein's words "explanation comes to an end" and our beliefs ultimately rest on a "form of life". From the outside- from the perspective of philosophy- the ground is continually slipping from under our feet. That is, no honest religious thinker can believe in religious dogma. We can't believe that there is a statement that is philosophically indubitable and not open to challenge.

Thank G-d then that our feet do not rest on such a slender base but one that is the broadest imaginable. We stand on a base of action- on a form of life- which provide a context in which our beliefs make sense. Within a halachic lifestyle a Jewish orientation is revealed throughout every aspect of our life. Our actions are in a sense, revelatory of our beliefs.

This doesn't mean we can point to our actions as a justification our belief. From the outside, as I have said, we can only be intellectually agnostic. How then, in the modern world where we are conditioned to see everything from the outside, should we make such a decision? I don't know. Yet I am sure that I can see the world as divine without breaking my neck.

The MP3, the list of questions and an orgiatsic experience (Alternatively titled: Moroccan Jewry)

Shal-oh-m. It’s 2.37 in the morning and I have just finished a shiur (“lesson”/ lecture) that has got me all excited. It’s certainly a good shiur, and how can you tell? Because I started listening at midnight, it’s 1 hour and 9 minutes long, and I have just finished it. Anyone who knows a friend, who knows a friend that does maths, or even lives in a country where mathematicians are present will know that, it doesn’t add up. I live with a Mathematician, ask him!

[I on the other hand, am a philosopher, and should be able to cast doubt on the most simple assertion. Last year, when my housemate arrived home from drinking and found me reading a book with ‘68 + 57 = ?’ on the front, he confidently asserted ‘125’. Of course (so I explained) the book was arguing that there is no fact of the matter as to whether by ‘+’ we meant addition rather than a different mathematical function. As such, you couldn’t castigate me for saying the answer to the question was ‘5’ (or you could, but not on the grounds that 125 is the addition to 68 + 57, which we both agree on). To this he went furious. It turned his mathematical world upside down and was questioning everything he held dear.]

That is [so I will confidently assert on this occasion] I was listening to the shiur for 88 minutes longer than it lasted! Magic, I hear you ask? Practical Kabbalah? A faulty watch? No, I’m afraid. Just having to pause it every five minutes to argue, to pace, to jump up in delight, to kvetch, to relive the point, to go to the toilet, to rewind and relisten to parts.

And what was this wonder? It was by Rabbi Dr. Marc Shapiro on “A Non-Orthodox Traditional Approach: Reflections on the Authority of the Moroccan Rabbinate.” And what was so brilliant? Well, it was worth listening just to the Americanisms: ‘Shal-oh-m’, ‘P-oh-skim’, ‘Takan-oh-t’. ‘A takan-oh-t that if he deflowered a virgin, he had to marry her.’ Ha! Deflowered, I haven’t heard that term since the last virgin who tried to bed me and wed me (/ an episode of ‘Friends’ with fat Monica). And the slightly funny comments like the following:

[Disclaimer: I put ‘slightly’ despite the fact that it was definitely a LOL moment. However, those who wonder why I laugh in synagogue very loudly, and wonder what was so hilarious are less impressed when I point to Rabbi Hertz’s commentary on the first line of Shema. But there you go… some people laugh at Friends, so there really is no accounting for taste]

“Today you go to the Bet Din, they can do whatever they want because they don’t have to adapt to the community because it is all voluntary… Now if the rabbis in America issues Takonot, no-one who wasn’t Orthodox would care, that’s for sure. And even among the Orthodox if the Aguna rabbis issued them, the Chassidim wouldn’t care; and if the Chassidim issued Takanot, the Aguna wouldn’t care; and if the Modern Orthodox issue Takanot, no-one would care, not even the Modern Orthodox.”

But witticism aside… this shiur raised such fundamental questions that had my head turning (‘literally turning’ as a misuse of English language might be heard to proclaim’). These are such fundamental issues that I just want to write about now if it wasn’t for the fact I have to be up in 4 and a half hours to daven, hear the megillah and go to Manchester to see my old Rav. The art of the blog is to write briefly but I have not an artistic bone in my body. See how long this is turning out to be and I’m not even writing seriously or putting my incisive, multi-faceted intelligence to (say I). But yeh… ever wondered about:-

• the nature of Jewish belief: dogma versus ‘just a set of laws’.
• the role of the Rabbi: to forbid the permitted versus permitting the forbidden.
• the ‘Chumra’ (stringency) culture versus ‘lets all go have sex' culture.
• the place of religion in Modern Israel: religious Zionism versus Zionism + Religion.
• Conversion in Judaism: ‘get lost unless you are a saint’ versus ‘we don’t want the kids to be non-Jewish, so let’s get you quickly converted, no questions asked’
• Halakhic ‘change’ versus the hegemony of the Shulchan Aruch (and more specifically the Mishna Berura).
• Why Askenazim have such a thing as ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Conservative’ or ‘Progressive’ denominations where (parts of) the Sephardi world have none
• The immorality of secular culture, the stupidity of Modern Orthodoxy, the terrifying and ridiculous (in no particular order) nature of Charedi world.
• Judaism as ‘sect’ (/religion) versus Judaism as a code for society at large

And more. Oh yes. The stuff was positively- I wouldn’t say orgiastic, okay I would- orgiastic. [‘Orgiastic’ is a word that Rav Soloveitchik repeatedly uses in a chapter of ‘The Emergence of Ethical Man’. Now, I’m sure he doesn’t mean it in the sense that the dictionary definition gives it : ‘pertaining to orgies’. But, I think we can understand the word in context]. So much so, I cannot talk about it now, but I had to write something! It will be on my pile of things to write about: I’m already in the middle of writing blog articles which I need to finish including “Chassidism without mysticism?”, “Easy religion”, “Is I Orthodox? Innit”. I get so inspired by things; the first of the aforementioned articles was inspired by “The Wind in the Willows” written by that great sage of old: Kenneth Graeme. But then I can never get them down cos there so bloody complicated (and no-one reads what I write anyway).

But just to give a general flavour…. The shiur was about the decrees of the Moroccan rabbinate and the nature of the Moroccan Jewish community. It was one where the whole community was under the sway of Halakha. Yes individuals were non-observant and very few you would call ‘Orthodox’. Yet the communities were run according to the decrees of the Rabbinate and they lived a traditional Jewish life. There was no ‘reform’ Jews trying to give a different account of what Judaism essentially was or should be. However, neither was there a need for a self-conception of ‘Orthodoxy’ and there was no need to tailor Halakha (or strengthen it) to root out the community of true believers from those who have left the fold.

The Bet Dinim (courts of law) had far more authority over the Jewish community in Morocco (as opposed to these days where, as per the ‘funny’ quote above, you’ll only listen to a Bet Din if you ideologically agree with the people that make the decisions). However, the effect of this is that the rulings were more lenient. Why? Because you are not ruling over a sect, or a group of like minded people, or those who have exactly (or so poskim must think) exactly the same needs. No… Halakhic law is just that. Law. It has to take into account and run society with people in with different needs, different beliefs, different circumstances. Plus they could be lenient because they didn’t think the leniencies would be taken as a concession to other sects of Judaism. How often, these days, do we hear “Oh. Umm. It’s technically allowed but you still can’t do it. It may lend credence to feminism, to other denominations, to secular wisdom, to the gentile customs, etc; plus don’t complain stringency beautifies the mitzvah” Does it heck!

[To a certain extent, this kind of situation still exists even within Sephardi ‘Orthodox’ congregations in Europe. When my brother was in Aix-en-Provence he said that it would be unheard of to have synagogue that weren’t run by ‘traditional’ Rabbis, but they didn’t kick up a poop when women in the ladies gallery put on tallit and tefillin]

Yet when the Moroccans moved to Israel, their culture and their halakhic traditions and thousand year old customs were not respected. There was a general prejudice against sefardim: the secular believed they were ignorant, superstitious and backward looking and the Yeshiva world couldn’t comprehend that there may be some traditions that are not codified in the Shulchan Aruch. Rav Ovadiah Yosef, a major figure, brought back pride for Sephardim but at a cost. In order to win respect from the ‘Orthodox’ (the Chareidi Yeshivish world) he has attempted to standardise Sephardic practice according to the Sephardic opinions in the Shulchan Aruch (despite the fact that many of his rulings deviate from it!). He himself orchestrated attempts to wipe out the halakhic traditions of some Sephardim. For example, based on teshuvot of Rambam, Moroccan Jews do not repeat Mussaf Amidah (especially if there is talking in shul). Unacceptable. Why? Because the Shulchan Aruch defines ‘Orthodoxy’. Why? Because ‘Conservative’ Jews say that halakha changes, whilst that law code was appropriate for the time, it is now no longer. So, G-d forbid that anyone deviates an iota from it (despite the fact that they do) because it lends credence to Conservatives.

What was interesting was some of the halakhic rulings of Moroccan Jews that are very pertinent today. There is a lot of fuss about women prayer groups in our world! Yet they have rulings going back hundreds of yours saying they are fine and happened! [G-d forbid we do them unless we are going egalitarian or copying the gentiles]. There are instances of ‘mi shabeirachs’ about v’imateinu Rachel, leah, v’sarah. [G-d forbid we have prayers like that unless we are reform]. There are other that aren’t directly importable (because they were relevant to their community not ours] but are still interesting. For example, prohibitions on gentiles and wine did not apply. Based on a [previously censored] ruling of the Rema, it was argued that there absolutely nothing wrong with wine handle d by Muslims. In fact, to prohibit it would be to turn the holy into the profane as, G-d forbid we consider worshippers of G-d into worshippers of idols. Obviously, that was a completely Muslim and as such, monotheistic culture, it would be different where there are religions [including Christianity] that may {or may not} be considered avodah Zorah.

In fact, there were lots of interesting rulings and so much to say. Let’s make a date… we’ll talk some time.

Damn its 4 o’Clock

Nonsense

Do you believe in pollywogs? Do you agree that there are =/*.**/'s? Do you believe in tampoline-electrifying-cacti? You surely must accept that one day popodijhgiuguy's will return?

WHAT?!?!?! Stupid right? Unfortunately this is what most people do most of the time. They use words like 'ghost' 'G-d' and 'soul' yet what they mean is 'pollywog', '=/*.**/' and 'popodijhgiuguy'

I was thinking that writing something when angry that is open to public viewing is a bad idea. Especially when drinking oneself stupid (well not drinking that much.. but its all relative). It can only turn out to offend people or make me look bad in some way or another. But i think I will anyway....

There is nothing more innane than stupid questions, asked stupidly. The only way you can converse is by engaging in stupidity with them. They give no meaningful criteria to what they mean; let alone, provide any criteria by which on could debate with them. Despite this, they believe there so-called 'idea' to be particularly 'un-stupid' and worthy of debate. Of course debate here simplye means a jolly old discussion where we can feel good that they have expressed their opinion. Their actual 'belief' is not up for discussion. Why? Because it is their belief; pure and simple.

Under this category fall such interesting dinner-time discussions as "Do you believe in ghosts?" So Neil, what do you think? I think the question is meaningless. So you don't believe in ghosts? I didn't say that. So you do then? I didn't say that either. I haven't the foggiest as to what you're going on about. I don't know what a 'popodijhgiuguy'; it is nonsense; it has no sense; our language gives no sense to it; it doesn't have a meaning; it means nothing. I neither believe nor disbelive it. it is merely a mark on the paper or a distinctly annoying noise coming from your mouth. 'But I swear to you', one participant will say, 'my mum saw a ghost, and my mum is the most honest peson I know'. Is she indeed? I would never doubt a self-evidnet truth such as that for a minute. But IT STILL DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. Moreover, I'm absolutely incredulous that the same people that would say something 'purpose in the universe' (and the practical responsibility it entails) is superstitious or mysterious; will happily go on about ghosts.

Stupidity, however, I can deal with (that's not what I'm angry about). There is no law saying "Don't be stupid". It doesn't make you any less worthy of dignity, respect, value or anything else because you are stupid. What's more, I'm stupid more often than not. Let people be stupid I say... what harm does it do? If a particular 'word' comforts people, gives them a sense of meaning, induces a big fluffy feeling inside, or is simply something people believe; good luck to them.

As far as ghosts go, this position is absolutely fine. Ghosts shmosts. Whatever. Who gives a toss? In fact, this is precisely why people are more likely to assent to ghosts than G-d because 'believing' in 'G-d' might mean people have to get off their lazy backsides and do something abou it. But it is precisely the reason why being stupid when it comes to matters is more dangerous. Because it means more.

Okay.... but if they have pseudo-mystical understanding of G-d and the soul and such like; and such a view is stupid what possible difference could it make? If it makes people happy, more fulfilled (etc) so what that they are stupid? The fact that 'it matters' what you say about such things means that you are likely to spread the word and not only be stupid but spread your stupidity. Again, so what if there is a whole community of people saying stupid things about the sole? The problem is not with the stupid opinions themselves, which I can live with. The problem is the bad practical effects that they can cause.

When you get such comments "women cannot learn gemarra (commentary on Jewish law) because their brains are differnet and their souls are different" then stupidity matters. Is my soul blue whilst a women's soul is pink? Is mine rectangular, whilst theirs is triangular? Dose my soul bounce around and proclaim "I'm good at Torah; I'm good at Torah" whilst a women's bounces around and says "As long as I know the laws of Kashrut, I'm just dandy"? What do you mean? Whilst I'm not going to discuss it now, the soul is an absolutely vital concept (although much misused). Secondly, I know very well what RAMBAM means when he talks bout a soul, what the mystics mean, what the bible means,etc but I have absolutely no clue what you mean. You are using this word "soul" to prove a very dodgy point. A 'point' that is used to meet your agenda and yet means nothing. What the hell could it possibly mean that the womens soul is not suited to studying gemarra. Your words are nonsense and yet you believe them to be so 'un-stupid' that not only can we not challenge them but have a practical effect on the people you are preaching to.

Look, I don't know if halachically women can or cannot study gemarra. Maybe they can, maybe they can't. Such dogmatic assertions as 'there is no position which they can' is definately false. When the chief rabbi approves of it and Rav Soloveitchik says that they can; then at the very least it is a viable halachic option. But this is besides the point.... If women cannot halchicahlly, they cannot halachically; because of a halachic reason. NOT because of some rubbish/mystical/essentialist/sexist/pseudo-philsophical/nonsense/mumbo-jumbo/'pollywog ' reason about the nature of a man and woman's soul.

At the very least, you should say what you mean or whether it means anything at all. It does no good to tell me "the soul is a Jewish concept" or "G-d says so" or "...just because you have a problem with Jewish teaching". Firstly, if G-d told me personally that '=/*.**/' was true, it gives me absolutely no explanation as to what it means. So if you insist (no matter what halacha says) that women have different souls and should not do gemarra; at least tell me what you mean. Secondly, I have absolutely no trouble with the 'Jewish concept' it is just that you are not telling me what you are taking the 'jewish concept to be'. The 'jewish concept' uses the word soul to cover a wide variety of hebrew terms and yet your are not telling what the common factor is or why this reflects on a woman's soul. In fact, I think you are peverting the 'Jewish concept to further halacha to your own ends. Thirdly, if I am correct, you are taking a very anti-Jewish view of what the soul is.

Oh... it is Shabbat now and i haven't finished my rant... will be continued