[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Meir Shinnar]

On Jul 14, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Arie Folger wrote:

> RMShinnar wrote:
>> What has to be understood (and not yet addressed) is, that for good  
>> or for
>> bad, the role of half the community has changed - and is no longer  
>> one that
>> is primarily in the home.   but if a woman has the right and option  
>> to be a
>> lawyer/doctor/teacher/..... - she will be in the public sphere and  
>> not in
>> the home. (By your criteria, how tzanua is it to get up in front of  
>> a class?
>> In front of a court?
>
> Sorry to barge in, but IIRC, there is a chazal that considers it
> immodest for a woman to stand in front of a court. Cited even by Rashi
> Devarim 22:16 (melamed she-ein la-isha reshit ledabber bifnei ha-ish,
> which is why she is represented by her parents).
>
>
I am thankful for RAF for bolstering my point.
First, WADR, I think that he is misinterpreting rashi - it is ledabber  
lifne haish, not lifne habet din-  see,eg, the torah temima on the  
pasuk - who views it as an issur for the woman to speak in front of  
her husband - not a question of in front the bet din.  I think that is  
the general understanding - various areas of tanach become  
incomprehensible otherwise (bnot tzlophchad, devora) - nor do I think  
that, say, in case of a get, the woman does not speak to the bet din.


However, I think RAF is reflecting a certain understanding that there  
is an inappropriateness of the woman being summoned in front of the  
bet din - and there are other ma'amre chazal that, IIRC, do support  
such a more general issue that limit the appearances of women before  
bate din.

This could be understood as reflecting either a general, eternal  
hazaka about the nature and appropriate status of women - as some  
other hazakot are understood - or reflecting more specific social  
situation, rather than a more general din.
In the haredi community, there is a strain that does limit strongly  
the ability of women to speak in public (eg, Rav Svei gave a speech to  
an Aguda convention, reproduced in the Jewish Observer, banning women  
from giving divre torah in public, and that many of the ills of the  
haredi community were due to this violation of tzniut)


What is clear is that the MO and YU community do not view it this way,  
and understand this as reflecting a social reality, rather than a  
statement of hazaka.  For example. the institution of toa'not, whose  
primary purpose is to argue before a bet din of men, is inconceivable  
if this is viewed as reflecting an eternal hazaka and notion of zniut.

Toanot are not universally accepted in the YU community.  However, WRT  
to secular court, and it seems quite clear that this hazaka should  
also apply to secular court, it is quite common in the YU/MO community  
for women to be lawyers- (and that was my original reference) -  
without a peep (and some  of the women I know ask frequent shailot to  
the YU Rashe yeshivot..)  (I don't now how common it is in American  
haredi society, but I know of cases, and again, I have not heard much  
mainstream American haredim argue  for the inappropriateness of such a  
profession - but here I could be corrected).  Therefore, any such  
limitation is clearly viewed, rather than reflecting the appropriate  
halachic nature of women, with requirement of tzniut, as reflecting a  
different social condition - and not applicable in today's word.

Meir Shinnar