[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Chana Luntz]

RAF writes:

> You have cogently answered all the questions, except why the 
> Sifrei has this limud that the woman (girl) isn't allowed to 
> speak before the man. According to the Torah Temimah, this is 
> about the mother of the accused girl. However, whether 
> according to his interpretation or yours, meaning, whether 
> the mother or daughter is excluded, either way, the Sifrei 
> should not have made its statement barring the woman
> (girl) from speaking before the "man" (either the 
> husband/father, the plaintiff turned defendant or the beit 
> din), as that teaching implies that we generalize from our 
> narrative, WHILE IN OUR NARRATIVE NEITHER OF THE WOMEN IS A 
> PARTY to the civil proceedings, and the mother is not even a 
> party to the criminal proceedings.

I agree, and I cannot explain the limud.  In neither case would one have
expected either the mother or the girl to be party to the proceedings.  I
struggle to see why one would have thought the mother a party - except
perhaps because she is mentioned a few lines up (or maybe because of the
parallels to ben sore u'more), and certainly can't see why she would have
been expected to speak, so we could learn from her not speaking.  In
relation to the girl, well the best I could come up with was that, given the
existence of the possibility of civil litigation, maybe we should have
thought that she would be leading it.  Maybe the Sifri understands that the
knas comes to the father because he has the right to speak, and he has the
right to speak because his daughter shouldn't.  Or maybe it thinks we might
expect the daughter to sue for the knas on behalf of her father, and speak
b'mkom haish, except that she can't, But it is very forced.

BTW, I notice that the language of the Sifri is "b'mkom haish" (as it is in
the yalkut shimoni) and the language of Rashi is "bifnei haish".  I am not
sure if there is any significance to the change in loshon (the first might
imply that a woman cannot speak on behalf of a (certain) man, while Rashi's
version would seem to suggest that speaking in front of a (certain) man is
the problem) but it is interesting.

> BTW, if the concern was that a 12 year old girl cannot be 
> expected to properly defend herself, and so an adult steps 
> in, why necessarily the father?

I think you are reverting to the defence part of it now, and for that part
the suggestion is that both the father and the mother come and present the
physical evidence.  

 Why not the mother or an 
> impersonal plural (which would indicate that if the father is 
> absent or died, beit din appoints a to'en for her)? Probably 
> because the Sifrei (intentionally?) disregarded this line of 
> reasoning.

When it comes to the statement actually made, it is clearly only the father
who can say "I gave my daughter to this man" - even though when orphaned,
the mother or brother have this right, it is only d'rabbanan, and miyun can
always be performed, so this trial is never going to happen. So I can't see
the mother saying anything - unless there was a hava mina to say that the
mother should speak on behalf of the father - but why would she do that?
Especially as the father is right there.  Unless you are trying to say that
ishto k'gufo only goes so far, and the mother cannot speak on behalf of the
father.

> Kol tuv,
> --
> Arie Folger,

Regards

Chana