[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:
> > No we are not.  The point at which this all occurs (ie where the 
> > father speaks, and on which Rashi comments) is where the 
> > innocence of the woman is already a given, and the father is suing for 
> > reparations  for slander - ie it is the "civil" litigation after the 
> > criminal one  has already been resolved in the woman's favor (the 
> > physical evidence  of her virginity has already been laid before the
court).

And RAF replied:

> Nice try, and indeed, 22:15 could indicate that you are 
> right, except that 22:17, by repeating that the parents are 
> presenting the evidence, shows that we probably do not 
> distinguish between the criminal and the civil aspect of the 
> suit. Once the girl's innocence has been proven, he is fined, 
> assuming all conditions for the fine are met.

I don't quite understand how you are reading 22:17 - but the straightforward
reading is that first we have the criminal trial, which was resolved in her
favour in pasuk 22:15 by the bringing of the tokens.  Then we have the civil
trial, which commences with the father speaking in 22:16, but for which the
physical tokens also need to be produced in evidence (that is 22:17) and
then we have the civil consequences, which are the malkos and the fine.

If you are concerned about the fact that, in 22:15 it has both the father
and mother bringing the tokens, then in 22:16 it has the father only
speaking, and then in 22:17 it again uses the plural, referring to the
further bringing of the tokens - then I agree it is a question.  So see how
the Ramban resolves it:

"It says the father of the girl says and then returns and says they spread
out - ie both of them.  And the reason is because this claim [hataviah
hazot] is for the father alone [haav levado] because the fine is his [haknas
shelo] but the mother is joined in the matter because the matters of
garments of women women deal with and they are knowledgeable and experts in
blood so it is proper for the mother to take hold and bring it to beis din."

That this is in fact the correct interpretation, and the father is the
plantiff, not speaking for the defendant, as you would have it, is, oddly
enough, proved by precisely the same Sfri, which adds a further
interpretation to "vamar avi han'ara" just a few lines on - "melamed
shetoveah matchil b'devarim techila" - we learn [from here] that the
plantiff begins speaking first.  If the father is speaking on behalf of the
defendant, then this Sifri makes no sense whatsoever.

> Furthermore, while you would make a lot of sense, considering that a
> 12 year old girl may not be most apt at defending herself and 
> standing up to her rights in court, the Sifrei does not 
> consider this interpretation, stating instead that this is 
> the prooftext wherehence we establish that the woman should 
> not speak up in court in front of the man. Indeed, you 
> recognize this when you write:
> 
> > It is not clear,
> > however, given that the monetary claim is not to come to her, what 
> >would be  the basis on which the girl should have standing to speak.

The only reason why the girl would have standing, is because of this
peculiarity of halacha, which seems to link malkos to civil litigation (this
is not the only place I have seen it, although I cannot think of where else
off the top of my head at the moment).  Ie a plantiff can sue to get the
defendant whipped.  Not allowed in common law legal systems of course, where
you have to pursuade the public prosecutor to prosecute - precisely because
it is considered that the criminal system should not be a mechanism for
victim revenge.  That possible right of the girl is excluded by the Sifri in
this particular case - where the father is the active party throughout.
Note the other limud that the Sifri takes from this part of the story "et
biti natati l'ish hazeh" - melamed shereshut l'av l'kadesh et bita katana" -
ie the father set the whole story in motion by choosing this husband to
begin with, without her consent, and it is then up to him to deal with the
subsequent litigation, again without her involvement, it is not for her to
mix in.

> KT,
> 
> --
> Arie Folger,

Regards

Chana