The Shulchan Aruch was used as the source for the reason that girls canÕt learn Gmarah. He says: Òtzivu Chazal shelo yelamdo adam et bito Torah...amru chachamim: Ôkol hamelamed et bito Torah, keÕilu melamda tiflut.ÕÓ (trans: Our Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah...the sages said: Ôall that teach their daughter Torah, it is as though he taught her tiflutÕ)

The Rambam says basically the same thing, it can be assumed that the Shulchan Aruch is basically quoting him. The Rambam says: Ò...veÕaf al pi sheyesh la schar tzivu chachamim shelo yelamdu adam et bito Torah...amru chachamim: Ôkol hamelamed et bito Torah, keÕilu melamda tiflut.ÕÓ (trans: ...even though she has a reward our Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah...the sages said: Ôall that teach their daughters Torah, it is as though he taught her tiflutÕ)

There are two basic things we need to ask when trying to uderstand the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.
(A) Where do Chazal make that statement?
(B) What in the world is ÒtiflutÓ?

LetÕs deal with question B first. The MODERATOR earlier pointed out that in the Shulchan Aruch in parenthasis it says Òpeirush davar aveirah.Ó ThatÕs certaintly makes it all clear - according to the Shulchan Aruch it is an aveirah to teach a girl Gmarah. The Rambam defines tiflut as triviality. In the Gmarah source for the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, however, things are not so clear cut. There, Rashi says that tiflut means immorality. Well, all these things are definately not positive things to teach. Now, letÕs look at who says them.

Sotah 20a: ÒMikan omer Ben Azzai: Ôchayav adam lelamed et bito Torah, sheÕim tishte tedah shehazchut tolah baÕ Rav Eliezer omer: Ôkol hamelamed et bito Torah, keÕilu lomda tiflut.ÕÓ
(trans: From here Ben Azzai says: Ôa man is OBLIGATED to teach his daughter Torah, that if she will drink she will know that her merit postpones itÕ Rav Eliezer says: Ôall that teach their daughter Torah, it is as though he taught her tiflut.Õ)
Now we know that the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch are Òtaking Rav EliezerÕs word for it.Ó ThatÕs hard to understand, after all Rav Eliezer is generally considered a shamuti and other rulings of his are rejected.
Also, the Gmarah concludes with an enigmatic statement by Rav Yehoshuah. ÒRotza isha bekav vetiflut mi tet kavin uperishut.Ó (trans: A woman wants one measure with tiflut more than nine measures with tiflut.)
If Rav YehoshuaÕs statement left you puzzled, donÕt worry to much about it, itÕs pretty hard to understand. However Rashi, Tosfot Ivra, and Bartenura all explain that Rav Yehoshua is concurring with Ben Azzai making it two to one and a majority saying that it is an obligation to teach your daughter Torah.

But even if you disagree with that reasoning, which many on this site probably will for one reason or another, there is more. There is nowhere that it says that a woman canÕt learn Gmarah. Everyone says the same thing, Ò...kol hamelamed et bito Torah...Ó (trans: all that teach his daughter Torah) The problem lies in a man teaching his daughter.
The Prisha (that the MODERATOR cited earlier) says on the words Òmipnei sherov nashim ein daÕatan mekuvenet vechuÕÓ (That quote is taken from the Shulchan Aruch and means: Ôbecause most women donÕt have minds that are focused on etc.Õ That is where the Shulchan Aruch gives his reasoning that women canÕt learn Gmarah because their minds are not focused on learning.) That if she has shown herself to be an exception there is no tiflut involved in teaching her, but her father still canÕt teach her because Òeino yodeah mah shebelibah.Ó (trans: he does not know what is in her heart.)
This is basically understood to mean that the Òet bitoÓ statement is pointing out that it seems that when a man would be teaching Òet bitoÓ she would still be very young and he doesnÕt know if she will grow up to be one of the frivolous women.
As far as the problem that the MODERATOR pointed out with the Prisha, that today women who study Gmarah are not neccesarily doing it out of higher motivations, but only because it is in vogue. I must admit that that issue bothered me at first, but a closer look at the end of the Prisha solves that. He is pointing out the natural way that things happen. Even if at first she is doing it because itÕs the ÒinÓ thing to do, she will not be able to maintain the facade, only someone who is properly motivated will keep from turning it into tiflut, and those women, who are authentic, can be taught. I think that the Prisha is saying that a neutral third party can evaluate and see her seriousness and whether her learning will lead to tiflut.
Tangentially, if this issue of women and Talmud study had not become so politicized there wouldnÕt be this problem. If the people on the ÒrightÓ had not decided to basically ÒbanÓ any girl who decides to learn Gmarah, and the ÒleftÓ hadnÕt decided to take it as a personal offense, it would not be so difficult to discern who wants to learn Lishma and who does not. The moral of the story: any extremism only leads to further confusion.

There is a lot more that remains to be said, and I fully intend to say it. The argument about women and Torah study (particularly Talmud study) is not a clear cut one, and needs a lot of iyun. I hope this post gets put up because I believe that all sides of an argument need to be opened in order to be informed and educated.

[I highly reccomend to people who are able look up the sources directly and see the entire thing to do so.
-Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 246 Seif 6
-Rambam Hilchot Talmud Torha Perek 1 Halacha 13]

I posted both your posts since theyre a little different and I didnt know which one you wanted up.

What you are quoting is the typical and common Modern Orthodox material on this topic. It doesnt work in the slightest. Most of it I have already dealt with. Now, point by point:

1) When there are 2 opinions in the Mishan or Gemora, and the Poskim, especially the Shulchan Aruch and Rama all rule like one of them, then theo ther opinion is rendered irrelevant in actualt practice. It is no longer an opinion that we are able to use l'mmaseh. it is nidcheh - rejected - l'halachah. So when you are talking Halachah L'maaseh, there are not 2 opinions. Not aftee the Rishonim and Poskim rejected one of them.

2) Your question about Rabi Eliezer is not your own - it is already asked in the poskim, and answered. there's nothign hard to understand. The easiest and simplest answer I know of is, that the reason Ben Azai holds that you should teach your daughter Torah is, as he states, in order for her to be aware of certina details of the Sotah process, so that if it ever came down to it, she would know Zechus toleh.

That being the case, Ben Azai would agree that nowadays that there is no Sotah process in practice, there is no longer any reason to teach your daughter Torah. So even though in the olden days there could have been 2 opinions, nowadays there is only one. There are other answers as well.

But for the record, even if we would be unable to find a single asnwer, or explain a single reason why the Rishonim chose R. Eliezer over Ben Azai, we would not be allwoed to reverse their ruling, but rather atribute the problem to our own understanding. Because we have a problem with the Rishonim we do not overturn their psak.

3) You misunderstotod the Prisha. He says that if a woman learns Torah on her own, that is the proof that she is properly motivated. He adds that of course, if in the course of her learning she distorts things, then it proves nothing. But the proof that a girl is an "exception" is due to her choice to learn.

This, as I said previsouly, does not work nowadays. Today, a woman who chooses to learn Torah does not prove that she is exceptional in any way whatsoever. And the proof of that is that learning Gemora is so commonplace today among women - including the non-religious, the semi-religious, the curious, and so many others, that just as a social observation in the days of the Prisha showed that women who chooses to learn proves she is indeed an exception, today the facts on the groiund show that it proves nothing. Once this proof is neutralized, the Prisha nor any otehr posek offers another way for a women to show she is not part of the majority. And since the burden of proof is surely on her, she may not learn.

The Prisha does not mean, when he says that "her father does not know what is in her heart" that the father is subjective but someone else can know. He says no such thing, that a stranger can know what is in anybody's heart. In fact, nobody knows what is in anybody's heart. The point of hte Prisha is that unless we have a proof that this girl is an exception, you have no way of knowing that she is, even if in you opinion she is an exception - for you know not what is in her heart.

4) Even though the Halachah is phrased that you may not teach girls Torah, the Halachah applies to her learning as well (unless her learning would prove her an exception, as in the olden day). Rashi and all the Meforshim explain the reason why we do not allow women to learn Torah is because if they know certina Torah information, they will misuse it and abuse it. That being the case, the problem is them knowing the Torah, not the particular way it entered their mind. On the contrary - if a woman has a good Rebbi to teach her Torah the likelihood of her misuing it i arguably a lot less, since even men are advised to always learn from a Rebbi, lest they misunderstand something. Teh Rishonim use the phrse Noashim Daatan Kalos to explain why we bleieve that women will distort their Torah knowledge. This rule (which, as Rav Soloveichik said, is existential, not social, and is used in other Halachos such as Yichud for instance). It is nonsensical to say that a woman will dostort somethgin she hears explained properly by her father or a Rebbi, but if she learns it on her own she will not. Learning without a Rebbi does not make the learning better.

But it is the woman herself - her own daas kalah - that is the weakness here. And so it makes no snese to distingush based on how the woman knows the torah.

To give you an example of how seriosu this prohibition is, see the Chazal quoted in the Meforishim in the Shulchan Aruch: "Burn Divrei Torah rather than give them to women!"

The reason the Halachah is phrased as "you may not teahc" even though the idea is that she may know "know", may be because of the Prisha's idea that awoman who learns on her own proves she is an exception - which clearly is not the case today when all kinds of girls are learngin Gemora - or it may be that in those days the only way anybody could learn from from someone else (they didnt have seforim) and since there were no Bais Yaakovs, basically the only way a girl could know Torah is if her father taught her. So the Halachah is worded according to the normal circumstances, but not meant to be absolute (this happens a lot in halahic literature). But in any case, if you understand the reason behind the Halachah - that most woman will distort Torah - this is clear.

5) What you wrote about a women learning not being able to maintain a facade is baseless. It says such a thing nowhere. In addition, even if it were true, you would still not be allowed to teach her Torah since until you would have no heter to wait for her long-term success - since the majority of women will not be able to succeed, what is your heter to wait and see if this girl will? You need a proof from the get-go.

In addition, how long is "long term"? A day? A week? A month? A year? Five years? There was a Kohen Godol who turned into a tzaduki aftre 80 years of righteousness. How long do you give for this trial period? Of course, since such a thing does not exist, you will not find an aswner to this question anywhere.

6) What you are quoting in the name of Rabbi Henkin is absurd. not only is it baseless - made up out of thin air, for it says nowhere that "women accepted things that they could see in black and white, but things that were oral were abstract and reduced to stories and parables." He just concocted this out of his head. No proof, no source, nothing. And the truth is the opposite - when the Torah was given orally, the Mesorah was stronger, clearer, and better understood. This reduction to stopries and parables is silly - Torah was not stories or parables - it was a tradition of Halachah and Torah just as we have today, but strogner, better, and clearer. Even the girls underatood Torah better in those days Chazal say that in the days of Chezkiyah therre was not even a little girl who was not an expert in the complex laws of Tumah and Taharah (Note: In those days those laws were Halachah Lmaaseh).

But never mind all that - what makes his idea something that no reaosnable person can accept is that the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and all the poskim still rule like Rabbi Eliezer even though when they did so Torah was already written! They were paskening for their own times. Not telling us what used to be.

(For the record, the Rabbi Henkin you quote is NOT the great Godol Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin. He is not reliable at all. (He is a grandson) and not accepted. As someone with a sn like proud2befrum, you dont want to quote this embarrasment of a rabbi) If you would like, check out his seforim, inclding his Teshuva on mixed dancing, see what he says and decide if this is a person you want to quote, or the funniest Teshuvah he has is about - and I promise I am not making this up - whether you are permitted (yes, permitted!) to say "Zatzal" on the Satmar Rebbe, or is it prohibited to say Zatzal on him, since Zatzal would imply that he was a Tzadik. I am not kidding. He really has a lengthy discussion about this. Sigh.)

As an example of why todya's female Gemora learners do nto prove to be exceptional in piety or Daas, but rather may be normal, regular women, it is because of statements such as these, courtesy of Rabbi Moshe Kahn, who is on the faculties of the James Striar School of Jewish Studies and Stern College for Women, both of Yeshiva University and the Drisha Institute for Jewish Education, New York:

Why should women, who are acquiring an expertise in the secular fields, be forced to remain relatively ignorant in their knowledge of Torah? Yeshivot are producing G-d fearing young women who are dedicated to Torah values and who truly want to learn and understand Torah. They certainly have the necessary skills and should be encouraged. They will gain immensely from it. Not only will it enrich their comprehension of Torah but it will add a new dimension to their religious observance and commitment.

As I have noted, even today women and men have been scientifically shown to possess different intellectual capabilities - completely different strengths and weaknesses, a list of which is posted on the site. This idea that because women can get good grades at physics means they are not included in Daatan Kalos is a failure. One has nothgin to do with the other. First of all, Torah - and Daas - is "soul-knowledge", and learning it includes a totally different part of us that physics does not include. And that is beside the fact that even in secular knowledge, men and women have widely different talents and capabilites.

According to him, where are the "rov nashim" that distort Torah? Certinaly rov noshim are capable of a secular education. The idea that because women can learn secualr knowledge they therrefore can or should learn Torah makes no sense.

And for the record, the same rabbi misquoted the Chofezt chaim. here's what the rabbi says:

The stricture of teaching Tanakh in depth is no longer in effect for the ruling of the Chofetz Chaim provided an unqualified license for in-depth textual study.

First of all, you have no way of knowing whether what i being said is reliable or even reasonable fomr a Halahcic perspective unless you (a) are an expert Talmid Chacham or (b) have trust in the authority of the writer.

Since neither apply in the case of Rabbi Henkin, you shoudl not be reading his seforim - its not as if youll be missing anything, but you will be messing up your mind. As an example, the thing you quoted in his name that after Torah is written the prohibition of teaching girls Gemora does not apply, which you considered quote-worthy when it makes no sense at all.

The Halachah is that we do not read seforim from an unqualified rabbi - im rabcha domeh alecha lemalach hashem tzivakos yevakesh torah mipihu. If not, not. The halachah is that we do not consider outselves on the level of R. Meir, who was able to learn from Acher, by paying attention to "WHAT is being said and not WHO is saying it."

You are making a terrible error if you believe that you can "If you check their sources and their logic" and "see if it all works out". In order to do so you would have to be a very advanced Talmid Chachm. "Sources" are subject to interpretaiton, anfd logic - svara, too - is somethgin that is not at all that simple. It takes years to master it.

I dont understand your last post, but in short, you admitted that Rabbi Henkin says outrageous things (read: against the Torah), and your issue was shoudl you read the seforim of someone like that. The answer is no.

As far as the Prisha, logic is logic. If you cant answer the proofs you ought to give in. If you dont wannt to, then admit to yourself that you really want one side to be right. And once thats true youre blind, because youre not objective anymore.

The Prisha does nto say that every girl has a right to determine if they are sincere enough to learn Torah, nor does nay father, nor does anyone. What he does say is that if there is solid evidence that a woman is an excpetion, we may rely on it. And the only proof he has that he considers useable here is the proof that if a woman learns on her own that proves she is exceptional.

Clearly, nowadays not every woman who learns is exceptional. In fact, some are outright anti-religious, some are not religious, some are semi-religious, some are very religious; some are smarter than others; and their motoives vary. Nobody disagrees with this. Clearly, then, if a girl learns on her own there is no evidence any longer to say that she is anything in particular.

And without that evidence you have no right to assume she is not part of the "rove".

As far as Rabbi Henkin, never mind, then, that you are not Talmid Chacham enough to recognize 99% of the problems in his wirintgs. But simple good midos should tell you that someone who writes pages regarding whether it is prohibited halachicly to say "Zatzal" after the Satmar Rebbe or not, shoudl tell you that this man is not someone that you want to learn from.

And even if you are not a Talmid Chacham, simple A-B-C logic will be able to tell you that what you quoted form him - about girls being able to learn Gemora after Torah shebal peh was written, even though all the poskim who prohibit it have done so after that time - makes no sense at all.