Maybe it's me, but I find this very unpersuasive. If one is to apply the tzniyus argument, one must apply it consistently. If it precludes women from serving as Rabbis, it precludes women from serving as lawyers, as professors, as businesswomen. I don’t think Stern College is about to shut down its pre-med and pre-law program, nor has anyone suggested they do so. Why the double-standard?Why was it so obvious to the tanaim that we can not have women rabbis? After all, Tosfos (Bava Kama 15a) raises the possibility of giving semicha to women, and having them serve on a beth din. So if women can possibly receive semicha, why can’t they serve the community as rabbis?
The answer is obvious. Although we must sometimes compromise on our midas hatznius and do certain mitzvos befarhesia (in public), this is not required of women. Women are not being discriminated against. They alone, unlike men, are given the opportunity to maintain their midas hahistatrus at all times.
Rashi in Devarim who writes that there was never a hava amina of appointing women judges can easily be interpreted as simply reflecting social norms common for that period, not halachic restrictions. Were tzniyus reason alone to dismiss a woman from serving as judge, one would have expected Tosfos or any of the other Rishonim who discuss the admissibility of Devorah to raise the issue – yet none do. Tosfos (B"K 15) is not discussing the theoretical possibility of giving semicha to a woman for her to hang as a diploma on her wall, but rather is discussing the reality of a woman serving as judge.
In the tshuvah by Rav Uziel I cited in the previous posts ( Mishpitei Uziel C.M. 6, link) he notes that women on a day to day basis engage in commerce without anyone objecting. “Al tarbeh sicha” restricts only frivolous, unnecessary speech, not professional interaction. If we do not limit women’s professional pursuits because of concerns for tzniyus, kal v’chomer we need not impose limitations when they are involved in klei kodesh, in activities that aim to strengthen Torah.
Rav Yehudah Herzel Henkin (Shu”T Bnei Banin I p. 202) in an essay entitled, “Mekomah Shel Isha” notes that the description of the eishes chayil portrayed by Mishlei is a women engaged in commerce, in providing for her family – not the stay at home mom. While not every woman can successfully be the ideal eishes chayil, that does not mean there is a prohibition against aspiring to do so. A recent news item celebrated the appointment of a frum woman judge to district court in Baltimore. It does not seem that the frum world shuns her for her achievements, but to the contrary, celebrates her ability to balance her religiosity with her involvement in the public sphere.
I am sure some will react to my post by saying, ain hachi nami, women should better be at home than in the workplace, and indeed, we should bar them from all professions, not only the Rabbinate. I credit them for at least being consistent, but don't see their attitude as realistic. Tzniyus while at work is certainly required, for men as well as women, but I do not think the requirement for modesty can be used to preclude professional aspirations entirely.
i heard the problem with the women getting ordination, or speaking publicly is shuls, is the same problem as the man wearing a wedding ring-a combo of lo silbash and feminism which s/o said might ultimately be a bigger aveirah of being kofer btorah. i wont elaborate b/c im not familiar enough with the arguments, but if its something that connects with you id be interested to read a post or a comment from you on the idea.
ReplyDelete"Feminism" means different things to different people. As my wife puts it [the quote is not hers], "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people too." I don't think that makes one a kofer.
ReplyDeleteCan you point me to a tshuvah that says speaking in public is 'lo tilbash'?
i cant point you to anything,
ReplyDeletei just wanted to know how much you agree with this mehalech being the issue- zero pct 100 pct split etc..
"Tsniyus" in this context does not mean staying home vs. going out in the workforce. It means that to be a judge (or any position of public authority -- serrarah) you need to display a level of assertiveness and boldness that is incompatible with the heightened level of tsniyus expected of a Bas Melech.
ReplyDeleteGo to a courthouse and watch a good judge in action and you will understand what I am talking about.
to clarify: I did not make up the quote; I saw it on a bumper sticker. The word "too" does not appear. As I told you, I've heard Tzipporah Heller, a bastion or the RW world address an audience of men and women.
ReplyDeleteTal, I don't buy your argument that assertiveness required for positions of authority equals lack of tznius. I know many stay at home wives who are far bolder and more assertive than I. It has nothing to do with what position one holds or the ability to wield judgment. You may have a bias against judges; almost everyone else has a bias against lawyers. ;-)
A good judge like Devorah? The facts simply don't fit what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard tzniyus equated with assertiveness, and assertiveness has nothing to do with serara -- assertiveness is demanded in many fields (visit the trading floor of an investment bank). As I noted, your logic would bar women from being lawyers, professors, politicians, doctors, etc. I have never heard anyone suggest such a thing -- it flies in the face of common practice even in the RW world, and certainly within the YU community where women are free to pursue higher education and professional positions in every field.
Being a principal (or even a teacher) demands assertiveness, as one must interact and command the respect of staff, parents, etc. Should the many Beis Ya'akov's begin a purge of their staff to replace those in leadership positions with men?
ReplyDeleteHair-spitting distinctions between a women serving a shul and women serving a school just don't cut it for me.
"I have never heard tzniyus equated with assertiveness"
ReplyDeleteA few months ago, there was a very interesting article in Binah, Hamodia's Women's Magazine by Rebbetzin Fayge Horowitz(daughter of the Noverminsker Rebbe) which actually addressed the issue of tzniyus and assertiveness.
It had nothing to do with frum judges, but she saw it as a negative that there are some women or young girls who have a meekness in ways which which are negative, and wrote clearly IIRC that "that's not what we want to create". Practically, she gave examples how there are women who deal professionally with men who are able to be both assertive and tzniyus.
(If you want my anecdotal observation as a man, while I don't know any frum women judges, I definitely know "bold" and "assertive" frum women, and have even had one as a boss--tough as nails. Too bad I didn't know at the time about the serrah issue :) )
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people too."
ReplyDeleteI remember an anecdote I read some time ago about a very frum, Chassidish rebbetzin. At a dinner, apparently, the MC said something like "I would like to thank all the people, as well as the women, for the efforts made in organizing the event". The rebbetzin said to her neighbor, "what, women are not people ?"
I imagine that the MC had no nefarious, misogynistic intentions, but I suppose there is *some* room for feminism in frum society.
RHS needs serious professional counseling.
ReplyDeleteTzvee,
ReplyDeleteWhy not speak to him to discuss any concerns or arguments you have?
(I will say, on a personal note, that I live and have been educated in the "haredi" world and its yeshivos; recently, I have listened to his shiurim and enjoyed them, and would certainly be interested in meeting RHS.)
Maybe the problem is specific to the marital unit. When the woman becomes a man, the man tends to become a woman, and it's pathetic to see a unnaturally weak and passive man, willingly self-emasculated by ceding his position and responsibilities to his wife. Bava Metzia 97a.
ReplyDeleteand as I've said before, there is a particular problem when it comes to interpretation of Torah; the Torah would undergo a sea change if it were interpreted by women; it would be a completely different Torah. Maybe better, certainly sweeter, maybe worse, but definitely different.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that there have been women who contributed greatly to the community, even in contemporary times, with their wisdom, without giving shiurim on R. Chaim's, Ketzos, or Nesivos.
ReplyDeleteAn recent example would be the late Rebbetizn Yehudis Perlow; I actually knew her a little, she having been friendly with a relative of mine.
She had professional training as a social worker, and was known for her wisdom(Hanoch Teller has an appreciation in one of his books). Yet when I once asked her something, she told me to ask her husband(Noverminsker Rebbe); she knew her place, and had no qualms about it.
>>>the Torah would undergo a sea change if it were interpreted by women
ReplyDeleteWhy is this a "problem"? Our world will be enriched by a different perspective. See hakdamah to Tanya regarding the perspectives of the Amoraim and Tana'im being rooted in the different netiyos of their neshoma towards rachamim, din, etc.
That being said, to me it smacks of post-modern relativism to say that how we reason is race or gender dependent. It makes me a bit uncomfortable.
Rabbi Adlerstein on Cross Currents left some room open, at least in theory, for increased women's learning:
ReplyDeleteFrom the post:
“Perhaps this is what we all sense in our rejection of maharats and rabas. This can change only when there will be yeshivos for women in which they can immerse themselves in learning for years, spending almost all of their waking hours learning. I’m not sure that such institutions will ever be a good thing for women.”
Comment(April 27th, 2010 at 10:14 am):
"YA - I'm not a navi, so not prepared to say what the future will bring. Read The Moon's Lost Light (Heshelis), with haskamos from gedolei Yerushalayim, and then get back to me.]"
April 28th, 2010 at 8:25 am
YA - The work is a speculative one. It shows a theme in certain kabbala seforim regarding changing roles for women as we approach the time of Moshiach. Like all other prognostication based on Maamarei Chazal, prudence is in order
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2010/04/27/let%E2%80%99s-not-institutionalize-mediocrity/
This is RMT's review in the JA of "The Moon's Lost Light"(I've never read the actual book).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ou.org/jewish_action/article/the_moons_lost_light/
Discussed that book a long time ago:
ReplyDeletehttp://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2008/01/equality-in-halacha-good-question-not.html
As Samuel Taylor Coleridge said, "A great mind must be androgynous." Limiting oneself to what would be considered masculine in thought is closing oneself off to a greater picture. The same may be said of restricting women to thinking in traditional feminine models.
ReplyDeleteWADR, I think you do not appreciate what it means to be a judge. Judging is an exercise in power. You are imposing your judgment on the persons before you. (In fact, the U.S. Constitution in Article III begins "The Judicial power of the United States . . . )
ReplyDeleteThat is precisely why judging and the judiciary are so closely tied to sovereignty -- it is an arm of the government imposing its will on you. (This could be criminal punishment -- death, whipping or jail -- or civil liability, which permits the sherrif or marshall to forcibly take your property to satisfy the judgment. Or if the judgment is an injunction, you can be punished with contempt if your violate it.) In fact, there is a Rashi in Sanhedrin which states that the power of judges in Bavel to judge derives from the Persian kings.
The same is the case for a din Torah. A dayyan is exercising the power of the Torah, and imposing that on the litigants. We don't appreciate the point because, in America, appearance before Beis Din is purely voluntary and is treated as voluntary arbitration. But if one is God fearing and believes the whole Torah is binding, in fact one is obligated to go to a Beis Din to resolve one's disputes with one's fellow Jews. So klapei shemaya juding a din Torah is an exercise of power as well.
Imposing one's decision on another forcefully is, of course, necessary for a court system to work. But it also displays a lack of modesty and privacy -- this is a public display of power. That cuts against tsnius.
As far as other careers women may go into, they may or may not involve assertiveness on the same level. I don't view being a principal of a Beis Yakov, where all the other teachers are women (and are free to quit) to be at all like a judge, who can jail someone for not following his orders. That's the thing about a judge -- you have no choice in the matter.
As for lawyers, there are some positions requiring a great deal of assertiveness, even aggression , like a lead trial lawyer, and I would say it is not appropriate for a woman (or for most men, for that matter). OTOH, there are many positions which are nowhere near that. (I know one frum woman who was my classmate in law school who writes wills all day for a living. Nothing particulary aggressive or assertive about that -- she is just offering her advise and expertise about the law of trusts and estates and the law of estate taxes to advise her clients how to go about disposing of their assets.)
As for Devorah, that case is an outlier because, in the end, she was appointed by Ruach ha Kodesh, so it was a horaas shaah. Whatever teirutz you give (and, as you point out, the Rishonim and Acharonim give several), it is an exceptional case. The general rule is that women cannot function as dayyanim, and the plain reading is that that is a din deOraysa.
(I don't agree that the Rashi quoting Chazal that states that of course a woman is passul is simply "reflecting societal norms." Rashi is commenting on a passuk, which stands for all times. Thus even without a passuk, min ha sevara women are possul.)
WADR, I think you do not appreciate what it means to be a judge. Judging is an exercise in power. You are imposing your judgment on the persons before you. (In fact, the U.S. Constitution in Article III begins "The Judicial power of the United States . . . )
ReplyDeleteThat is precisely why judging and the judiciary are so closely tied to sovereignty -- it is an arm of the government imposing its will on you. (This could be criminal punishment -- death, whipping or jail -- or civil liability, which permits the sherrif or marshall to forcibly take your property to satisfy the judgment. Or if the judgment is an injunction, you can be punished with contempt if your violate it.) In fact, there is a Rashi in Sanhedrin which states that the power of judges in Bavel to judge derives from the Persian kings.
The same is the case for a din Torah. A dayyan is exercising the power of the Torah, and imposing that on the litigants. We don't appreciate the point because, in America, appearance before Beis Din is purely voluntary and is treated as voluntary arbitration. But if one is God fearing and believes the whole Torah is binding, in fact one is obligated to go to a Beis Din to resolve one's disputes with one's fellow Jews. So klapei shemaya juding a din Torah is an exercise of power as well.
Imposing one's decision on another forcefully is, of course, necessary for a court system to work. But it also displays a lack of modesty and privacy -- this is a public display of power. That cuts against tsnius.
As far as other careers women may go into, they may or may not involve assertiveness on the same level. I don't view being a principal of a Beis Yakov, where all the other teachers are women (and are free to quit) to be at all like a judge, who can jail someone for not following his orders. That's the thing about a judge -- you have no choice in the matter.
As for lawyers, there are some positions requiring a great deal of assertiveness, even aggression , like a lead trial lawyer, and I would say it is not appropriate for a woman (or for most men, for that matter). OTOH, there are many positions which are nowhere near that. (I know one frum woman who was my classmate in law school who writes wills all day for a living. Nothing particulary aggressive or assertive about that -- she is just offering her advise and expertise about the law of trusts and estates and the law of estate taxes to advise her clients how to go about disposing of their assets.)
As for Devorah, that case is an outlier because, in the end, she was appointed by Ruach ha Kodesh, so it was a horaas shaah. Whatever teirutz you give (and, as you point out, the Rishonim and Acharonim give several), it is an exceptional case. The general rule is that women cannot function as dayyanim, and the plain reading is that that is a din deOraysa.
(I don't agree that the Rashi quoting Chazal that states that of course a woman is passul is simply "reflecting societal norms." Rashi is commenting on a passuk, which stands for all times. Thus even without a passuk, min ha sevara women are possul.)
>>>in the end, she was appointed by Ruach ha Kodesh, so it was a horaas shaah. Whatever teirutz you give (and, as you point out, the Rishonim and Acharonim give several), it is an exceptional case.
ReplyDeleteBut the vast majority of Rishonim do not say that -- they offer other theories justifying Devorah beign accepted which accord without invoking hora'as sha'ah. Again, the facts simply do not support your position. Devorah was exceptional because of the sociological conditions; with the advent of far greater numbers of women learning Torah, the exceptional cases are fast becoming the norm.
Secondly, by your own definition, a Rabbi holds a far less powerful position than judge -- he cannot jail anyone, and can easily be dismissed from his position. A women synagogue president cannot willy nilly impose her/his views on the congregation. Your own definition opens the door to women serving in these public roles.
Also, check out the Orech Hashulchan choshen mishpat siman 7 sief 4. He poskins like the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how you could compare the modern orthodox non-acceptance of daas torah for things like the age of the universe and conflate it with the idea of woman rabbis. They are completely different issues. One is a matter of straight up halacha, woman rabbis. The other is a matter of hashkafic views, aka age of the universe, with ZERO halachic parameters. The modern orthodox view is, give me a reason. There are reasons why women should not be rabbis. The idea of daas torah is whatever the "Gadol hador" says must be followed. That is making the "gedolim" into a pope like figure is it not?
Also, if you buy into the whole, 'the gedolim must be followed" approach, why do you have a blog and why do you have internet?
One more thing, based on the Rambam and Orech Hashulchan, a women is halachicly forbidden to have a position of authority AMONG THE JEWISH PEOPLE. Also, Rav Henkin's father apparently poskined like the orech Hashulchan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aruch_HaShulchan).
ReplyDeleteThe A.H. accepts the sevara of 'kiblu alayhu,' which many contemporay poskim hold applies to appointments done democratically. A Rabbi chosen by a board -- he is not appointed by some outside authority, like a melech who was appointed by a sanhedrin.
ReplyDeletePlease at least look up the sources in the post (esp. the Mishpitei Uziel).
Just to note as well: The A"H is simply explaining the din in S.A. that a woman is pasul as a judge. The majority of Achronim (just look at the SM"A, the GR"A, etc, right on the page) explain this based on the Mishna in Nidah that anyone pasul l'eidus cannot be a judge -- nothing to do with serara (exactly like Tos in many places).
ReplyDeleteAs stated in the other thread: The Aurech Hashulchan QUOTES the rambam in the source that I gave you. He says women can not hold any position which gives them authority over the Jewish congregation. I am not sure where you get the fact that he says only to be a judge. He says ALL positions of authority.
ReplyDeleteHere is the Aurech Hashulchan, check him out. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9103&st=&pgnum=19
Tal, it sounds to me very much like your are imposing your own subjective views on what is appropriate to a woman. Here you fall into begging the question, assuming what you are supposed to prove in your supposed proof. Rabbi Daniel Sperber imposed no such limitation on women in his talk on the subject on Shabbos. He dealt with reality rather than his subjective view of what should be. And the reality is that women are judges, even Supreme Court Judges. You can also find women at the heads of companies, where they, doubtless, have to practice authority and some assertiveness. That is metzius. Were the metzius now as it was 100 years ago, you may have had a point in insinuating that women who go into such professions are deviations from the standard norm. But that hardly hold up in 2010.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, by your own definition, a Rabbi holds a far less powerful position than judge -- he cannot jail anyone, and can easily be dismissed from his position. A women synagogue president cannot willy nilly impose her/his views on the congregation. Your own definition opens the door to women serving in these public roles.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that SOME rabbis are treated like shmattas by their congregations, most are not. Granted they do not have the power a judge has, but they have the power to decide for the tsibbur what it is going to do as a tsibbur -- e.g what kashrus is permitted in the shul (or town), what kind of eruv, what kind of davening, etc. Poskining a shailo is invoking the authority of the Torah and applying it to that situation. Yes, today, no Rov can force his congregants to do anything, if they have any fear of God they must realize that they are bound by his psak.
Ariella, excuse me, but kol kevudah bas Melech penima, is not my subjective evaluation of how women should act. So some women do inappropriate things in secular society. So what? Lots of women dress in a manner not befitting the daughter of the King. Doesn't affect how Orthodox Jewish women dress.
ReplyDeleteThat is not the standard of modesty our tradition requires. A Jewish community follows the Torah's view of what is appropriate, not secular society's.
>>>Poskining a shailo is invoking the authority of the Torah and applying it to that situation.
ReplyDeleteA mashgiach can close down a restaurant, an entire food plant, can force a company to pay fines, etc., yet a women can serve in such a position.
Your original position was that assertiveness = lack of tzniyus. Now you are asserting that simply having authority = assertiveness or lack of tzniyus. That's a non sequitor. Plenty of people have authority but exercise it with modesty and discretion.
>>>kol kevudah bas Melech penima, is not my subjective evaluation of how women should act. So some women do inappropriate things in secular society. So what?... Doesn't affect how Orthodox Jewish women dress.
ReplyDeleteWrong on both counts: It absolutely is your subjective view, and how society acts does affect halacha. The Rambam and S.A. write that a women should seldom leave home, that a man should not walk behind them, etc. Why don't you follow those halachos to the letter of the law? The answer is because poskim (going back hundreds of years already) recognize that societal norms have changed and the halacha changes with them. Your error is in equating dress, many elements of which are grounded in objective halachos, with more subjective elements of tzniyus liek kol kvuda, that have always been measured against societal norms.
There are many fine frum women doctors, lawyers, businesspeople who find no conflict between exhibiting modesty in their dress and behavior, incorporating the value of kol kvuda into their lives, and successfully engaging in their careers. By what measure, if not simply you own subjective opinion, do you define their behavior as wrong, but give a stamp of approval to a women PT, OT, teacher, etc., professions women even in the RW world pursue?
The Midrash's (P. BaMidbar) example of the embodiment of kol kvudah -- Moshe Rabeinu. Could there be clearer proof that authority, assertiveness, leadership, need not be in conflict with the trait of modesty?
Here's another proof that the assumption that kol kevudah bas melech penima, is a guide to limit the behavior of Jewish women. Clearly, it an assumption of general behavior for women who did not generally go out. That principle underlies the very halacha that allowed Boaz to marry Ruth and beget the ancestor of David Hamelech. Though Ruth was a tznua --as Chazal say --she did take action as needed without claiming that tznius demands she remain passive.
ReplyDeleteJust to fill in the gemara I forgot: "Moavi v'lo moavis" is predicated on the fact that Moavi women were not guilty for not going out to help Bnei Yisrael because kol kvuda, i.e. in general society, even Moabite society, women stayed at home.
ReplyDelete