Ketubot 67a-b Top
ת"ר יתום ויתומה שבאו להתפרנס מפרנסין את היתומה ואחר כך מפרנסין את
היתום מפני שהאיש דרכו לחזור על הפתחים ואין אשה דרכה לחזור יתום ויתומה
(דף סז,ב גמרא) שבאו לינשא משיאין את היתומה ואחר כך משיאין את היתום מפני שבושתה של אשה מרובה משל איש
Our rabbis taught: An orphan boy and an orphan girl that come (before the tzedakah fund) to be provided for; they provide first for the orphan girl, and afterwards they provide for the orphan boy, because it is the way of the men to return to the doors, and it is not the way of the women to return to the doors. An orphan boy and orphan girl that come (before the tzedakah fund) to marry, they marry the orphan girl first and afterwards they marry the orphan boy, because the embarrassment to a woman is greater than (the embarrassment) of the man.
After you have thoroughly understood the text, discuss it in the comments. How does the Talmud treat needy women differently than needy men? Why? Do you agree or disagree with the text? In a time when women could not work, how should Jewish law treat women versus men?
The Talmud treats needy women differently than needy men by providing for the orphan girl fist then the boy they also marry off the girl first and then the boy. This is because woman are more embarrassed to marry an orphan then men are. I think this is fine as long as the men are not as embarrassed. Because men are less embarrassed and don't care as much, it is okay to let the woman get the privilege.
ReplyDeleteMia (Comment #2)
DeleteAdding on to what Elanit said, I believe that the women getting married off first is perfectly fine. Not only is it because of embarrassment i believe its also because of money. I know they're orphans and money isn't something that they have to spend causally on weddings. The likelihood of a female orphan begin able to get up and begin to make money to provide for herself and pay her own dowry (because she is an orphan and has no one to provide for her) is very low. On the other hand it would be a lot easier for a male, especially in this time (compared to women) to go and get a job and accumulate enough money to provide for a family. I say this in a positive way, yes it might sound degrading towards women, but its a different time. for example if it were in this day and age i would say the women would be more encouraged to work, but because it is in different times it would be more common for a male to do this instead. So i believe that this was done so the male could have a little more time to find money and to find his own wife, leaving more money in the tzedakah box for the orphan women.
(Comment No. 2) The Talmud appears to treat the orpham girl moreso than the orphan boy, even though in previous texts it treats them as a burden, by providing the necessary money first. According to my interpretation of the text, the marrying an orphan is a bit embarressing, and apparently women are more embarressed for it. My thoughts are that the text does not really understand the necessities of marriage. Women, back then, worked in the house only while men did the official jobs. It would seem more obvious to give the money to the man first to set him on his destined path. Also, how does embarressment of marriage factor in? It seems like a poorly thought reason to give money to someone.
ReplyDeleteNatasha comment #2
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Talmud's way of marrying the orphan girl first instead of the orphan boy. One reason that I agree with this is because in those days women were not allowed to work, so the orphan girl should be a bigger priority. Also the orphan boy could probably get a job, whereas the orphan girl couldn't. One question I have is why, when women have never been as important in the same way as men, are they a bigger priority? Why did the Talmud not want to marry the orphan boy first instead of the orphan girl? I know that I have my own reason but what was the Talmud's? I realize that in some cases a woman can be as important as a man, but marriage is a serious thing so why was the orphan boy deemed less important then the orphan girl? Also it seemed in the first text we read that women were not only deemed a little less important then men, but that they were also a burden to marry and to give away. Also since the men really helped provide money for the household and worked. Why since the orphan boy could contribute more to society were they not married before an orphan girl?
Alana comment #2
ReplyDeleteReferring to the time that this text was written and the fact that women could not work and were not held on the same level men were I would have to agree with this text. Obviously, this text treats men and women differently by saying that a woman should be provided for first before a man because at the time (and even now in this time period) it was not only inappropriate but embarrassing for a woman to be begging for money. In a time where women could not work I think it is right for the Talmud to put them ahead of men because they have no way to support themselves if they are not married. Although it may seem unfair to men, if they were in the reverse situation where they were not allowed to work I think they would agree that they should be put ahead because they have no way to support themselves.
My question about the text is although in giving tzedakah it seems right to give to the orphan girl who has no means to support herself rather then a man who can work, why does it matter if she is married off before the orphan boy? Is marriage that important in which the female should have to get married first? I think the reasoning for this though is that once the woman is married she then can be supported by her husband and then the community can take care of the orphan boy.
Gabi Comment #3
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alana and Natasha's questions, the girl orphan is given the money before the boy orphan because, like it says in the text, of the embarrassment. I think this means that the longer the girl waits to be married, the more embarrassed she becomes. This is because back then a woman's main job was to have children. The longer it is until a woman gets married, the longer she has to wait to have children which is embarrassing for her. Since the boy orphan doesn't have these obligations, it is okay for him to wait for the money. In this text, it seems like the Talmud is being very considerate of the girl orphan's feelings, instead of disregarding them like we have seen in previous texts. My question is, why does the text take into account the fact that the girl orphan would be embarrassed? Why does this matter? They could have just said that the longer she waits to get married, the less time she will have to have children, but instead they talk about her feelings.
Malka's comment #2
ReplyDeleteWhy should the girl get married before the boy? Does it matter? "The Talmud treats needy women differently than needy men by providing for the orphan girl fist then the boy they also marry off the girl first and then the boy" (Needy Tree). I strongly agree with your statement. The Talmud's states clearly that the women are more important to get married off more than men. I believe that this statement is sexist by being on the orphan women's side more then the orphan man. Why should it matter if the male orphan gets married first? Or if the female orphan does?
Why should the men return to the doors and not women? This is another sexist situation that I do not understand.
Women should be as equal as men. Men should be as equal as women. That's my opinion. However, the Talmud teaches us otherwise. I believe that it shouldn't matter on gender type in order to do something such as marriage first or returning to doors
Jason Comment #2
ReplyDeleteAs response to Malka's comment, I think that the reasoning for the priority to marry off an orphan girl than a man is that back then, Women could not provide for themselves (society would not let them) So, they need men to get the money to provide for her. If a man has no money, he can make some for himself and if he still needs help, he can come back to get tzudakah. A woman can't get a job, so she needs the money more than the man. This is sexist, but that was customary that women were unequal to men really until 1920! (Women could vote in America) So, this is how the world was back then.
Zachary Comment #2:
ReplyDeleteAs response to what was originally said, It is confusing me. Why do the women always go first? Why do women have to be cared for first and married first? Through out history, the man has always been the more important by a pretty big gap. I see this law and I am like, what the heck? This is i think one of the first times I have seen a female put before a male. I'm not trying to sound sexiest but it is the truth. Its a good reason however, that the girl should be placed before the man. The I think this is because yes, it is embarrassing if you were a girl back then and you weren't married. For a guy, it wasn't as bad. Also, for the orphan girl. The orphan girl is provided before the orphan boy because it is the way of the men to return to the doors, and it is not the way of the women to return to the doors. It was a good overall idea to let the girl have the upper hand in this situation.
Samuel Fogel comment #3
ReplyDeleteA common misconception is that the talmud is sexiest which it undoubtedly gives of the impression of when it says women are too embarrassed and can not fend for them selves. Yet I feel that the talmud is working in the guidelines of the time period presented, when the talmud was written. Over the last few years and especially very recently guns laws and the second amendment have been a topic of great argument. However I feel that these laws have become very dangerous and out of date since times have changed drastically. Specifically, the second amendment was written during a time when America was not fully established and the british were a dangerous and violent force that was very present. The amendment made sense back them because people were constantly in danger of british soldiers coming into there homes. Just like the talmud made statements that seemed sexist they worked well with those times and made sense. Clearly they are unnecessary today because of women's rights and influential power they hold. I Strongly feel that the amendment should be changed just like if the talmud played a huge role in todays world then I feel that it would also need some major changes. To conclude it seems unfair to me to say the talmud is sexist because you have to understand the circumstances of that era.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI don't think that it should have been a rule for a girl to marry before a boy. Wasn't it said that we were all created in God's image? Doesn't that mean that everyone was created equally? So why does it say that the girls need to be married before the boys? Do they have something against boys being married before girls? So why doesn't say that this is how it needs to be.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the Talmud is right. I think that it is ok if girls get married after men. I understand that it might be embarrassing, but What if the situate was reversed, it would be embarrassing no mater who it is. I honestly think that it is ok for the girls to get married after the boys. Also, why do the girls get the prophet first? It's the same thing. I understand that the girls become the mothers and have to support the children, but what about the boy? Doesn't behave to support for the entire family?
Molly Comment #6
ReplyDeleteTo answer Rivka's question, like it has been said in many peoples comments, the reason the women get married first is because in those times, women's jobs were to just cook and clean in the house and be in charge of the family. I agree with Mia by saying that this is not necessarily against the women because that was simply their nature back then. So I ultimately agree with this text because women have always been more likely to get married earlier, even if you are not an orphan.
By researching, I found out that even nowadays, the average age for getting married for women is lower than the average age of men getting married. The average age for women is about 27 and the average age for men is about 29. Although this is not a very big gap, two years can make a very big difference in a man's life. I think that this is because women are more mature and ready to settle down. As a little girl, most girls can just think about getting married and having kids. I know I can relate to this because my dream has always been to find a husband and have kids. Also, not as much in our time now, but back then, as I said before, women's jobs were just to take care of their kids. A lot of men might have the fear that when they get married, it might be hard for them to stop looking at other women in that way. Personally, I think that this text is accurate for back then and today. Women just always have that need for marriage, and most of the time it is at an earlier age than men.
My question after reading this text is what if the girl orphan does not have the typical embarrassment of not getting married? Does the rule then change that the boy orphan gets the money first? I also wonder why they automatically think that boys are not as embarrassed as girls? Even though they are typically less fragile and don't care as much to what other people think, there are of course exceptions to this, as in most cases. So I would like to know why they automatically assume this.
Bonus comment #1
ReplyDeleteThis text states that an orphan women should be married before an orphan man. Why though? The text then explains that it is less embarrassing for the man not to be married at an older age then it is for a women. Again, why? A women's job back in the day was to clean the house, prepare food and make/take care of her children and husband. When a women got a older and did not have the obligation to do any of these things, they would become embarrassed. Since a man did not have these obligations and would not become embarrassed, the orphan women would therefore be married first. I agree with Gabi when she says that this is text is being very considerate to women's feelings, but isn't it being inconsiderate of the man's feelings?
By doing research, it is almost as f the role of men and women have changed throughout the years. A women's obligation is no longer being required to co and clean and make babies. In an article I found in USA today called "An American role-reversal: Women the new breadwinners," explains that there is a family with a women solder and a stay at home dad. Yes, the women got married at a young age but not because it would be embarrassing for her if she didn't get married. She married her husband because she loved him, and it didn't matter how old he was. It is no longer embarrassing for women to be married at an older age today, quite frankly, many people don't care. You even see women getting married at the age of 90! That's because of love! This article really just shows how the role of men and women had change over time.