[Avodah] [Areivim] Kol B'Ishah and Halachic methodology

[Michael Makovi]

> This summer, in preparation for returning to secular college, I did quite a
> comprehensive study of hilchos tznius.  My conclusions were similar to some
> of his - that the halacha of "tzarich l'hisracheik min hanashim meod meod"
> is based on a totally different societal basis, one where men and women by
> default were entirely separate, and any contact between the sexes was
> dangerous.  Nowadays, when society is in any case so mixed, I don't think
> the halacha expects me (or wants me) to be anti-social and davka avoid
> sitting at a table where a girl is sitting.  (More on that at another time,
> maybe.)

In Equality Lost, Rabbi Henkin comes to this EXACT conclusion. He
quotes the Gemara that one of the rabbis would carry a bride on his
shoulder at a wedding and respond he was of such a level that it
didn't affect him. Then, the Maharsha (I think; it was Maran haRav
someone) says that this works not only for an individual, but also a
society: when the entire community or society has greater interaction
between the sexes, they become inured and distance is no longer
necessary. (Rabbi Henkin adds that this does not apply to explicit
asurim, such as showing too much skin. He notes the misunderstanding
of the Aruch haShulchan: the AH says that since women are often
without a hair-covering, men are inured and can say Shema around them;
the AH does NOT say that it is mutar to go without a hair-covering.)

Rabbi Henkin makes another important caveat: he says he is not trying
to trailblaze new heterim, but only seeking to justify, post-facto,
current practices.

Something else occurs to me: in Pirkei Avot we learn not to have too
much sicha with women. Many commentators comment on the wife part of
the Mishna and say it only means don't have trivial conversation with
her, but meaningful conversation is perfectly allowed (Rav Hirsch on
Avot for example says the word "sicha" means davka inane
conversation). I'm not sure if these commentators extend this heter to
the earlier part of the Mishna, regarding a stam woman. But it seems
to me that since the Mishna is speaking about (a) stam women (b) your
wife (c) kal vachomer another man's wife, whatever heterim apply to
(b) should also apply to (a) and even (c) (because of dayyo). Thus, it
should seem that meaningful conversation with a stam woman about
serious topics, should be completely mutar.

Regarding the Pirkei Avot about speaking divrei Torah at a meal, Rav
Hirsch there says that it doesn't mean davka words of explicit Torah,
but rather ANY meaningful conversation about a serious topic. He says
that whenever one talks about a secular topic that has to do with
living a good (= Torah) lifestyle b'klal, then this topic is
considered Torah, even though technically it isn't a topic of Torah at
all. Does anyone else notice a parallel with TIDE?

Mikha'el Makov