The Mishna states according to Ben azzai one is obligated to teach his daughter torah so that if she drinks (meaning if she is a sotah if she drinks) she will know that a merit Zechut is suspending her (protecting her from punishment.
1. My 1st kashe is why is a father "obligated" to teach his daughter Torah based on the fact she would know that she has a zechut if she becomes a Sotah-Why in the world would a father be obligated based on this who cares what does it matter if she knows she will die anyways and further why would it be specifically an "obligation", would we really go so far as to make an obligation upon a father for such an uncommon case which is the possibility his daughter would become a Sotah!???
2. Secondly, if the reason as the ben azzai states that a father is obligated to teach his daughter Torah so that she would know she would have a zechut if she becomes a Sotah than a father should only be obligated to teach her parshat sotah! so that the daughter would know what happens to a Sotah and what the zechusim are!?
3. Furthermore, if the whole reason is because she might become a sotah would this din apply today according to Ben Azzai since there is no beis hamikdash we can not have sotahs today, so there would be no chiyuv?
Daniel Fishman, Lawrence New York
I gave a video-shiur today in the Kollel Iyun Hadaf on this Sugya, Bs'd, and I dealt with a few of the points that you raised, so why not look at the Shiur www.dafyomi.co.il/shiurlist.htm ?
(1) (a) The Meiri writes that the advantage of the fact that she learns Torah, is that if she should drink and not die - even though she is in fact guilty - people will not doubt the power of the Sotah water to check the unfaithful wives. Even if the Sotah woman is very strongly suspected by people of being unfaithful, nevertheless people will judge what happened and decide that the reason she survived must be because she had some merit which suspended and delayed her punishment.
[According to the Meiri it seems that the zechut referred to is that attained by the Sotah through her learning Torah. This differs from Rashi that the reason the daughter should learn Torah is so that she should realize that the zechut of the Sotah helping her children or husband to learn Torah, saves her.]
(b) Tiferes Yisrael #18 writes that the reason that the daughter should drink, is because if the daughter should see a Sotah drink, the daughter should know that if the Sotah has merits, this may save her.
Tiferes Yisrael also explains that if the daughter herself was later "mezaneh" and drank the water but did not die immediately, she should not think that she has got off scot-free and say that this proves that the Sotah water does not work, but rather she will know that she must have some zechut that saved her for the time being, but within 3 years will surely die. (see Gemara below, top 21a).
Tiferes Yisrael appears to conform with Rashi's explanation, but the common factor of all the above explanations is that the purpose of the daughter learning Torah is so that people should understand that the Sotah does not necessarily die immediately, and therefore will not doubt the effectiveness of the Torah's Mitzva of Sotah.
(2) (a) Your question is asked by Rav Chaim Greinemann, Shlita, in Chidushim u'Biurim.
(b) In my Shiur this afternoon, I argued that this matter is in fact a dispute between Rashi and other Rishonim. According to Rashi, Ben Azai does not maintain that the father should teach his daughter the entire Torah but it is in fact sufficient to teach her the parshat sotah. Rashi himself seems to say that he has to teach her the pasuk "v'Nikta v'Nizra'ah zerah" - that because of her zechut she may still conceive. Rashash (below 21a) appears to learn that he much teach her the verse in Amos cited below 21a, which teaches that it is possible to survive 3 years. Etz Yosef (cited in Ein Yaakov) learns that he much teach her what Tosfos cites at the very end of 20b, that Minchat Zicharon teaches that if she possesses zechut, this postpones her punishment.
(c) However Tosfos 21a DH Ben implies that according to Ben Azai it is not sufficient that the women who come to the public reading of the Torah in "Hakhel" should merely listen to it (as R. Elazar ben Azarya maintains) but in fact they must actually learn it properly just like the men. Since, at this reading, it was not only Mitzvos that women have to keep that were read out, it seems that according to Ben Azai women should learn all of the Torah.
(d) Similarly the Rambam in his commentary on the Mishnah here, and in Hilchos Sotah 3:20, writes that the zechut that saves her is that of learning Torah itself. So even those who disagree with Ben Azai and maintain that one should not teach her Torah, nevertheless agree that if she did learn Torah this gives her a zechut that can save her. Ben Azai appears to maintain that one should teach her Torah in order to grant her a zechut and therefore one has to teach her the entire Torah, not merely parshat sotah. The Meiri seems to agree with the Rambam on this point.
(3) (a) Indeed according to Rashi it would seem that nowadays that the mitzvah of sotah does not apply, Ben Azai will agree that there is no mitzvah to teach the daughter Torah.
(b) However I would like to offer 2 proofs that there are opinions according to which Ben Azai will say that nowadays also one should teach the daughter Torah.
(A) Ein Yaakov cites Iyun Yaakov that Ben Azai is consistent with his practice cited by Rashi below 49a DH Shakdonim - in the name of Yevamos 63b - that he never married because of his great love of Torah. I argued in my Shiur that the common factor of these 2 famous ideas of Ben Azai is that he had an incredible appreciation of the lofty level of torah. Therefore he said that one should give one's daughter an opportunity to benefit from the great zechut that Torah can give her. If so, it does not make a difference whether the mitzvah of Sotah is applicable or not. This is what the Mishnah means when it says "Mikan" - "from here Ben Azai said", i.e. since one sees that Torah possesses this quality that it can lengthen the life of the Sotah, this proves that it is extremely important to learn Torah and therefore one should also teach one's daughter. In other words the Mitzvah of Sotah reveals to us the tremendous merit of torah and once we know that, Ben Azai maintains that one should always teach one's daughter.
(B) Sanhedrin 94b states that in the time of King Chizkiyahu, Klal Yisrael were so learned in Torah that they checked from Dan to Beer Sheva and did not find any man or woman, or boy or girl, who was not expert in the Halachot of purity. The question is how did the women and girls learn these Halachot? One answer given by Teshuvat Maharil #199, is that at that time, they held like the same teaching that Ben Azai was going to make hundreds of years later. Maharil adds that we find in the Talmud many cases of ladies who were learned in Torah. An example is the maidservant of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (see Megilah 18a). Maharil asserts that the fathers of these learned women conducted themselves according to Ben Azai and taught their daughters Torah.
Since R. Yehuda HaNasi lived after the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, this proves that Ben Azai's teaching applies even when there is no practical Mitzvah of Sotah.
[However the Halacha does not follow Ben Azai - see Shulchan Arukh YD 246:6 ]
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
WOW. Thankyou so much this was an amazing response i really appreciated all of it. But i still have some MAJOR difficulty i really need a response back quickly because im lost with my following questions.For my 1st question it seems you have explained 1 aspect of the question in explaining what the Zechut is and a little bit of why in stating:
"Tiferes Yisrael appears to conform with Rashi's explanation, but the common factor of all the above explanations is that the purpose of the daughter learning Torah is so that people should understand that the Sotah does not necessarily die immediately, and therefore will not doubt the effectiveness of the Torah's Mitzva of Sotah."
1)But i still don't understand for why would it be an "OBLIGATION" in that why would the Torah go so far to say that every father is obligated to teach their daughter Torah so that people will not doubt the effectiveness of what will happen to a Sotah in that people would now know that a Sotah doesn't die immediately since she may have zechut (b/c a father teaches his daughter Torah or specifically parshat sota so people will now "know") but why would the Torah force an obligation lest people doubt this effectiveness ?why doesn't the torah command something lest people might doubt something and you know what then why doesn't the torah command everyone to learn all the philosophical proofs for proving the Torah is true or that Judaism is the only true religion and let every yeshiva be forced to teach this so that people would know it and command every father to teach their children these proofs and that way NO ONE WILL DOUBT IT! -this will
a)prevent people from doubting the torah just as by Sotah there is an obligation to teach the torah on sotah so that people would not doubt it
b) This would make much more sense to teach thean sotah since this will prevent people from doubting the entire torah
c) This will even include the hava amina that people will doubt that sotah is not effective because they now have solid proof that everything in the torah MUST be true and since the torah tells us a sota will die than she will die!? YET there is an obligation accord. to Ben Azzai according to you're interpretation that a father must teach his daughter (parshat sota) lest people might doubt the effectiveness of the torahs mitzvah of sota! and there is no obligation of Ben Azzai to teach what i have suggested before which is something that might prevent something, especially that something???
2)In addition, if So then EVERYONE should be taught torah or parshat sota based on this NOT JUST a daughter b/c as you explained the reason for ben azzai is that PEOPLE should understand sotah doesn't die immediately so they dont doubt its effectiveness !? Why not obligate everyone to learn and to teach to all their children or specifically teach all women (who even might become sotah because of doubt) torah or??
3) Furthermore, If as you are saying the whole reason for Ben Azzai is that people would not doubt its effectiveness because they will now know about what will happen then why dont we just make an obligation to just tell people that this will happen! That a sotah might have zechut that's why she is not dying yet. Simple one statement to people (daughter) this will prevent people from doubting the effectiveness of the mitzvah of sota! Why do we have to make into a whole serious obligation now for every father to must teach his daughter torah or (daffka parshat sota). Just tell them simply! no torah really has to be involved or even obligated to prevent a doubt !????
(I understand my questions now are only according to certain interpretations.)
Furthermore, i have a question not exactly related to my original first but as you had a very nice pshat connecting Ben Azzai here and in Yevamos 63a as you stated in response to my original 3rd question
" Ein Yaakov cites Iyun Yaakov that Ben Azai is consistent with his practice cited by Rashi below 49a DH Shakdonim - in the name of Yevamos 63b - that he never married because of his great love of Torah. I argued in my Shiur that the common factor of these 2 famous ideas of Ben Azai is that he had an incredible appreciation of the lofty level of torah. Therefore he said that one should give one's daughter an opportunity to benefit from the great zechut that Torah can give her."
a) But my question on Ben Azzai then is that just as Ben Azzai never even got married so he could not possibly have a daughter to begin with! So then how could he even be the one to state "Everyone is obligated to teacher torah to their daughter".? If he had such great love for Torah why did he command people to teach the torah to their daughter which he does not even do himself!? and further Aren't you not even allowed to tell someone or give tochacha to someone in Judaism about something they don't even do themselves as i cant tell someone don't do that when i do that myself? and if he has such a great love for torah why doesn't he even live up to it by teaching his daughter torah? or having kids to spread torah ?
Thank you for your help.
I think you are 100% right! The most important thing in the world is to know that the Torah is true and Hash-m is true, so all our study of Torah is really aimed ultimately at that goal.
(1) You ask why doesn't the Torah command every Jew to know that is it true and that Judaism is the true religion? Well, actually the Torah does command us about this. If we look at the 13 Principles of the Faith we see that the 1st principle is to know that the Hash-m created everything and runs the whole world. Another Mitzva is to believe that the Torah we have now is what was given to Moshe Rabeinu on Har Sinai etc.
The Rambam writes somewhere (I can't remember where at the moment) that he wrote at length about questions of belief because even one point of Emunah is the most important thing for a Jew to appreciate and there is no limit of time that is worth spending on it.
You also raise the point that Yeshivot should teach about proving that Judaism is true? Well, I think that the good Yeshivot do! Most Yeshivot have a spiritual Mashgiach whose job it is to teach the students Emunah and Yirat Shamayim. A major goal of the Musar movement (on which present-day Yeshivot are based) is to show us how to work on our belief in G-d and his hashgacha in the world.
Going back further, the Geonim and Rishonim wrote a lot of books proving that Hash-m exists and that the Torah is true. The Rambam wrote the "Guide for the Perplexed" (Moreh Nevuchim). Rav Saadiah Gaon wrote "Beliefs and Opinions" (Emunot u'Deot). These Sefarim were intended to teach Klal Yisrael a pure belief in Hash-m and the Torah, and we also have lots of seforim with a similar purpose being written today. This is exactly the same idea that Ben Azai had when he said one should teach your daughter the Torah. (Of course he didn't mean only the daughter and he agreed that certainly the boys should also be taught all of this).
However a colleague of mine added an interesting insight. There is a special reason why Ben Azai said that one should teach the daughter Torah and not just belief. This is based on what the Gemara Avoda Zara 20b (cited by Mesilat Yesharim near the beginning of the Sefer) says that "Torah leads to carefulness and carefulness leads to eagerness....holiness leads to the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit leads to the Revival of the Dead". In other words the very highest levels can be reached through simply learning Torah in the right way, and if you do that you often do not need to have philosophical proofs of the truth of the Torah because a person realizes through his love of Torah study that the Torah just must be the right way. This is often why nowadays not everyone requires a special study of proving the truth of the Torah because once they get involved in learning it is obvious to them.
However, back to our Sugya, I think one can understand that if someone knew for sure that the wife had been unfaithful but even so the water did not kill her, this would be quite a big Nisayon in their belief in Torah, so Ben Azai recommended that this stumbling block should be removed as much as possible by education that sometimes zechut can save her.
(2) Your question about Ben Azai appearing to be inconsistent is asked by the Gemara Yevamos 63b. Ben Azai taught that if someone does not have children this is considered equivalent to spilling blood. They asked Ben Azai that he said a very nice Drasha but he didn't put it into practice himself? Ben Azai answered that he had no choice because he had such a great love for Torah that it was not possible for him to marry. He added that the world would continue by means of everyone else.
We learn from this that Ben Azai was a unique person. No one else possessed his tremendous love for Torah. Ben Azai did not have a daughter but he was able to teach other people who do have daughters, what to do, because his reason for not marrying was totally sincere.
It should be pointed out that the Halacha does not follow Ben Azai, very probably because he was on a very high level that no-one else could reach. The halacha is that one should not teach girls and women Torah. However the Chafetz Chaim wrote (in his book Likutei Halachot in our Sugya) that nowadays the halacah is somewhat different, and this is for the sort of reasons that you mentioned, namely that the most important thing is belief in Torah and Hash-m. At one time, girls got their belief and Jewish knowledge from their parents but nowadays this link has often been broken so the Chafetz Chaim wrote that it is very important that all girls and women should receive a good Jewish education. They should not learn Gemara, but they should learn Chumash and Nach and all the halachot that are relevant to them and get a very good grounding in Haskafa and Emuna.
Well, I think that we put into practice what the Rambam said that there is no limit to how much time you should spend to discussing matters of belief in G-d and Torah, and I enjoyed it a lot!
Shavua Tov and Hatzlacha Rabah
Dovid Bloom
Thankyou.Just i need some further clarification.
1.Based on R' Bloom's recent answer he stated "(Of course he didn't mean only the daughter and he agreed that certainly the boys should also be taught all of this)." this answered by recent 2cnd question labeled 2) but if so why did Ben azzai specify ones daughter if it refers to everyone even boys according to this interpretation
2. As you mentioned everyone is actually obligated to learn and be taught the proofs to God and Judaism in response to my question why do we obligate teaching daughter torah to prevent the doubt by sotah and not teach everyone the proofs of the torah.. and you stated that good yeshivas do this.But i dont understand no yeshivas and parents actually do this!? Let me ask you seriously did you teach your 'e children all the proofs to God and judaism? Im assuming not yet there could always be doubt and there is definitely a lot more doutbt in "knowing" God and judaism then there is for the Mitzvah of sota.
In addition, The musar movement or a Mashgiach doesn't teach people "proofs" of torah judaism and God but just teaches yirat shamyaim and tikkun hamiddot and things like that.And this is definitely not taken as an obligation in any yeshiva today or at least my yeshiva didn't teach us any of this. And certainly i cant imagine any father whatsoever who taught their children the proofs of Torah or anything or anything of the sort and certainly it doesn't say anywhere in shulchan aruch a father must do this yet in Ben Azzais code of law its an obligation to teach ones daughter Torah so that people wont doubt the Mitzvah of Sotah!?
I think we can answer my question that maybe it is indeed so that in Ben Azzais code of law or shulchan aruch he would enforce every father to teach their children and everyone to be taught the actual proofs of God and Torah much more than we do today.Just today we dont pasken like Ben Azzai anyway so we would not apply my svara that according to the interpretation of Ben azzai that a father is obligated to teach his daughter Torah because of doubt so too we should teach proofs to prevent doubt of God and Torah.
3. Where in the Torah does it say we have to keep the 13 principles of faith, and who wrote it and who made it up that we have to know this? It doesn't say it in the Torah doesn't say it in the Gemara and it doesn't say it in shulchan aruch?
4.Who was youre collegue that suggested the idea by the Messilat yesharim i want to say that over and be mikayem "omer davar bisheim amro."
5.At the end you stated about women "They should not learn Gemara, but they should learn Chumash and Nach and all the halachot that are relevant to them and get a very good grounding in Haskafa and Emuna" on the shita of the Chofetz Chaim. But isn't the prohibition only father to daughter why does this apply to "women" in general? Also, there are people and yeshivostoday who teach women Gemara bshita and their daughter Gemara and even lumdus is this shita justified lihalacha as valid or what? Some of them claim that we can use the Chofetz Chaim to even teach Gemara today to women since this will enhance their emuna in hashem.
The Satmar Rav ZTZVKL writes in Vayoel Moshe Maamar Lashon Hakodesh in Siman 48 page 451 that "There are IDIOTS that use the Chofetz Chaim that's says...and they are like being motzi shem ra on that Tzadik that its as if he said it Chas vishalom on shas, rishonim and shulchan aruch.." -From what he states that they are idiots doesn't doesn't sound like they are a valid shita is this agreeable by everybody or is it really eilu veilu divrei elokim chaim????
Thankyou. if you can respond in # form i would appreciate it like 1.2.3. .. in answer to my questions.
Reb Daniel! A tremendous Yeyasher Koach for your in-depth analysis and questions on this Sugya!
(1) The reason that Ben Azai only mentioned daughters is because there is a totally different source for the obligation to teach one's son. Rashi below 21a DH Ha cites the verse (Devarim 11:19) "And you shall teach them to your sons" from which Rashi infers that one is not obliged to teach Torah to your daughter. Rashi's source for this is the Gemara in Kidushin 29b and 30a.
I argued in my shiur that Ben Azai agrees with this way of learning the above pasuk. My proof was from the Meiri on 20a (bottom of p.45 in R. Sofer's edition) who writes that when Ben Azai states that a person is "obliged" to teach his daughter Torah this actually means that it is "Ra-uy" - "fitting" to teach her Torah, which implies that even Ben Azai agrees that it is not the same sort of obligation that one has for one's son, the latter being a deoraita obligation whist in contrast for the daughter it is very worthy because of the tremendous merits that Torah can give a person, but not actually a binding obligation for
someone who does not have the appreciation of these high levels.
(2) (a) The Ramabam starts off his Sefer Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 1:1) "The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a First Being who created everything that exists."
(b) The Mishneh Brurah Shulchan Arukh Orach Chaim 1:1 in Biur Halacha DH Hu cites the Sefer HaChinuch who enumerates 6 Mitzvos which apply every minute of the day. The first is to believe that there is a G-d in the world who created everything ....and took us out of Egypt and gave us the Torah......and directs everything that happens in the world.
(c) Since we saw that a father is obliged to teach his son Torah it follows that he must teach his son Emunah, which is the very first Mitzvah that the Rambam cites.
(d) Whether or not a person is obliged to study the proofs of Hash-m's existence and of the truth of the Torah is I think a complicated question which the Rishonim discussed quite a lot. It makes quite a lot of sense to say that if a person feels that his belief in Hash-m and the Torah is strong, then there is no need to prove it. This may be the reason why people do not spend a lot of time nowadays on philosophical proofs because many feel that they do not need them, and they would not add much to their belief. However everyone gets a chizuk in emunah in their own way - some for instance by seeing the wonders of nature, which Hash-m created (see Rambam Yesodei HaTorah 2:2) and others by observing Hashgocha Protis in their own and in other people's lives etc.
(e) I am not saying I taught my children Emunah in Hash-m in a formal, systematic way but one does look for opportunities to talk about Hash-m. A child asks who created such and such so you explain it was Hash-m. Then he starts asking who Hash-m is and you explain he created the world and everything in it. As a child gets older you explain more difficult ideas about how Hash-m looks over everything we do.
(f) I think a lot of Mashgichim etc. spend a lot of time talking about Emunah, or at least seeing in a practical way about how everything comes from Shamayim. See Rav Shimshin Pinchus's Sichot for instance. Or if you read the works of Rav Elazar Shach zt'l, they are full of Emunah - showing how everything that happens in the world is said in the Torah. Somebody once said to me after reading one of
Rav Shach's books "That's a Jew who lives with Emunah!".
(g) Rabbi Yaakov Emden wrote that the miracle of the survival of the Jewish people throughout thousands of years of exile is an even greater miracle than the exodus from Egypt. So if someone studies Jewish history (whilst wearing spectacles sensitive to seeing Divine Providence), this can also be a strong
chizuk in belief.
(3) The Rambam writes the 13 principles of the faith in his commentary on the Mishnah at the end of Masechet Sanhedrin. This was summarized later and is printed in most Sidurim usually just after Shacharit. It is also the basis of the Yigdal hymn, usually printed in the Sidurim at the beginning of Shacharit, which is why Yigdal is so important. Incidentally young children are often taught Yigdal and when you sing it with them this is a good opportunity to talk about basic beliefs.
It is true that the Shulchan Arukh does not talk a lot about the obligations of Emunah. I believe that the Mefarshim explain that this is because the way of the Shulchan Arukh is to explain practical Mitzvot, not so much the obligations of
the heart.
(4) My friend (who incidentally is not connected to Kollel Iyun Hadaf) - who made the comment connecting the Torah of Ben Azai with the Torah of Pincahs ben Yair mentioned in Avoda Zara 20b and in the Mesilat Yesharim - is Rabbi Yechezkel Frankel of Ramot, north Yerushalyim, where I live. (His grandfather was the late R. Yedidya Frankel zt'l, the Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv).
(5) The purpose of our Kollel is by no means to pasken practical Halachot so my following comments should be taken merely as citing of sources and any practical question should be addressed to a competent local Rabbi.
It is true that the sources use the term that one should not teach one's daughter Torah. However I do not see that there is any logic to say this only means one's daughter, not other girls, and my source for saying this is the Gemara below 21b which states that when wisdom enters into a person, craftiness enters together with it. The Rambam Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13 (presumably based on this Gemara) writes that the minds of most women are not properly directed towards to studying Torah and instead understand Torah as fantasy stories. According to this reason there would be no difference whether one teaches one's own daughter or somebody else's daughter because the problem lies in the general nature of females.
The reason why the sources mention the daughter specifically, is because the pasuk in the Torah [that we saw above (1)] states that one is obliged to teach one's son, from which we infer that not one's daughter. The Din that one should also teach students - who are not the sons of the teacher - is only derived from Devarim 6:7 "You shall teach them diligently to your son" which Rambam Talmud Torah 1:2 explains in the name of Sifri, to mean "your Sons" - these are Talmidim, because students are also considered equivalent to children.
I do not think that the present forum is a suitable one for entering into a detailed discussion of the contemporary question of girls' education, but I will cite Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 3:87 who writes that one should prevent girls studying Mishnah. One should only teach them Pirkei Avot - because this teaches us Musar and good behavior. One should explain this Masechet to them to arouse them to the love of Torah and good traits, but one should not teach them other Masechtot.
Reb Daniel! Thank you once again for going into this subject in depth, and much Bracha and Hatzlacha in all your endeavors
Shavua Tov
Dovid Bloom
(2)/(3)= a. In response to Rebbi's answers for my questions 2/3 Rebbi stated that the reason we or parents or yeshivas dont teach the exact proofs for God and Judaism today is because many of us dont need it since many already have a strong belief in emuna or that we can see hashem through hashgacha and things like that.But i still need some clarification since accord. to 1 interpretation of Ben Azzai's chiyuv to teach ones daughter Torah is because we don't want people to doubt the Mitzva of Sotah that the waters might not work.
So then if so come on does anyone honestly think that people are really going to doubt the Mitzva of Sota do you know how many miracles happened in the Beis hamikdash how can anyone really doubt hashem because of this and we should apply the same thing as you suggested by emuna /belief to sota - that we should not have to teach people torah since people already have a firm belief that it would happen or they would believe it since they already see all hashem's hashgacha for themselves for sure this would happen to a sota after all so many miracles already work in the Beis hamikdash.YET, there is still an obligation to teach ones daughter torah lest people might doubt the Mitzva of Sotah. If we dont really have to make a whole big obligation about learning all the proofs about God/Judaism so that people would not doubt God, we should not have to make a whole big obligation to teach torah lest people might doubt the mitzvah of Sota?
b. Rebbi explained that Emuna is not mentioned in shulchan aruch because " is because the way of the Shulchan Arukh is to explain practical Mitzvot, not so much the obligations of the heart."- Ya Practical mitzvot! this is probably the most practical mitzva possible much more practical then the case of Even Haezer Siman 123 seif 5 "one who writes a Get on shabbos or Yom Kippur bshogeig and happened to have given to his wife is considered divorced." What the shulchan aruch cant right one must at least try to learn these things because its a duty on the heart , It should also be a duty in ones action after all if we would pasken like ben azzai the shulchan aruch may have states "everyone is obligateds to teach his daughter torah?
c. And my question was not just why shulchan aruch doesn't mention it but what about the Torah shebichtav itself or at least in the Gemara.If it doesn't mention it in these places why do all of a sudden i have to keep 13 principles of faith that the Rambam made up. Why does the Rambam's pirush mishnayot all of sudden get to decide what halacha is so much that i have to keep these 13 prinicples so if i dont am i being oveir an issur am i an apikorus? It doesn't say anywhere in the Torah i have to follow the Rambams hashkafa what commands me to have to keep these principles and how is the Ranbam authorized to decide this when its not even brought down before the Rambam we have to keep them. Why didn't we have 13 principles commanded upon us from har sinai`?
(5) My question is straight up about the daf on teaching women torah shel bal peh today from the Gemara in Sotah to the Rambam to Shulchan aruch its a basic question to answer if this applies today according to all valid opinions much more basic then my one about our emuna/belief education having to do with the Gemara in Sota.
Im not asking for any halichic psak as Rebbi stated im asking a question on Gemara that applies today.If its really wrong to teach women Gemara today according to all accepted Authorities then the Kollel should tell me im being a mivakeish. From what the Satmar Rav said it doesn't sound like this is an eilu veilu shita . So if the Kollel refuses to answer this question straight out whether its eilu veilu divrei elokim chaim than at least tell me if there are any valid poskim who hold this way bzman hazeh this is a basic question asking for sources to who holds validly holds its mutar bzman hazeh as Rebbi has stated "The purpose of our Kollel is by no means to pasken practical Halachot so my following comments should be taken merely as citing of sources and any practical question should be addressed to a competent local Rabbi."
And so what if a competent local rabbi does not keep this law because he believes we have to modernize into society and teach women gemara to keep them religous eventhough chazal and the chofetz chaim says we should not teach women Gemara.And so what if a local rabbi is an "idiot" according to the Satmar Rav should i be allowed to ask him am i allowed to ask someone who is an "idiot" and halacha? I dont mean to ask any halichik question of course but if something is wrong by chazal rambam shulchan aurch the Torah to do i should at least be notofied that this is a prohibition according to all valid poskim even bzman hazeh.
The Teshuva of Reb Moshe is one of the only times where he states "Vizehoo Pashut" at the end that its obvious this is wrong. Also ,Rav Elya Svei was the one who sent the shaila to Reb Moshe and somone told me he asked Rav Elya Svei about why he sent the shaila to Reb Moshe and Rav Svei said back he didn't send the shaila to Reb Moshe because he didn't know it was assur but he sent the shaila to Reb Moshe because he wanted Reb Moshe to say it.
However, i posed the shaila to Rav Reuven Fienstien shlita in front of a large crowd in these words "is it a valid shita as eilu veilu to those that hold a father could teach his daughter Torah shebal peh todat and to those that say we should teach women Gemara? He answered me "Well, the Gemara states " kol..." its not an "issur" to teach just its bad advice. So then i asked him so how come Reb Moshe says its assur in teshuvos? and Reb Rueven responded he doesn't say that its assur just one shouldn't do it-its bad advice and go see the people who dont listen that its bad advice look what happens to them.
I looked in the teshuva again and Rav Reuven's right in that it doesn't say its "assur" . But Reb Moshe still says its a "tzivoy chachamim" not to do it which means its prohibited even though it doesn't say the word assur. So tzarich iyun. This led me to some confusion i dont know why exactly Reb Reuven said that but maybe its because he was speaking in front of many people and he didn't want to say publicly its just wrong.But tzarich iyun can Rebbi please answer some of this?
Here is an additional insight into one of your original questions:- why does the father have to teach his daughter the entire Torah - why is it not sufficient to teach her about the Parsha of Sotah, so that she should know that it is possible that zechut will save her even if she was unfaithful?
[We may have already mentioned some of the ideas here, but I think it may be somewhat clearer and more confident now].
The answer is that there are things that a woman must understand before she can fully appreciate how it is possible that even though the Torah says she must die immediately if she was unfaithful and then drank the Sotah waters, nevertheless there is some incredibly powerful quality known as "zechut" that can lengthen her life for a period of time.
She must know (1) what is zechut? (2) which kind of zechut can save her?
(1) To appreciate fully how it could be that she did not die immediately, the only way she can realize that the Torah can have this tremendous zechut is by actually learning the whole of the Torah herself.
There are certain things that one can only understand if one actually experiences them. An example is in Pirkei Avos 6:4 which states "This is the way of the Torah : Eat bread and salt, and drink water by measure, sleep on the floor, live a life of pain and toil in Torah. If you do this you will be happy and it will be good for you". The question is asked: why does Pirkei Avos have to stress "If you do this"? The answer given is if you do not actually do this you would never believe that you could be happy by leading such a hard life. The only way you can appreciate this is by actually trying it out.
Similarly Ben Azai maintained that a woman cannot fully appreciate the amazing zechut of Torah unless she actually learns all of it.
(2) I mentioned previously that Ben Azzai agrees that a woman is not actually obligated to study Torah, but rather it is merely highly praiseworthy. I would like to suggest that Ben Azai can agree with the conclusion of the Gemara 21a in the name of Ravina that the zechut that saves her is that of helping her husband and children to learn. To understand this a woman has to understand the distinction between doing a Mitzva that one is obliged to (e.g. the torah of her husband and sons) and a Mitzva which is non-obligotary (her own Torah). One cannot understand the great value of keeping a Mitzva which one is obliged for, unless one knows the entire Torah.
Good Chodesh
Dovid Bloom