[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Arie Folger]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Chana Luntz<chana at kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.

May be there is a different. I tentatively suggest that For the
Yalqut, she may not represent her father. That supports your reading,
that the father is the real party to a civil litigation, and while she
is symbolically there, she may not speak for him. This may, however,
question the propriety of a woman being a litigator (corporate lawyers
earn more while they stay gently in offices drafting and reviewing
documents, with occasional meetings).

Rashi's lashon is more difficult, as it may imply that she may not
stand up in court to sue her husband who has besmirched her name, but
needs to delegate this responsibility to someone else, for instance,
her father. Indeed, while both parents accompany her to court in
22:15, only the father speaks in 22:17, so even the mother is
prevented from speaking up.

Again, we don't pasqen from Rashi or Yalqut Shim'oni, and there may be
many reasons why we do or do not include this Sifrei as halakha
pessuqa; I am not touching upon this point, letting you guys argue it
out. You are all doing a marvelous job.

>> 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.

No. Since only in 22:17 is the father speaking, I am not convinced
that the Sifrei distinguished between a criminal and a civil suit.
Instead, I think it saw 22:17 as the elaboration of 22:15, which
explains why it can state that the mother or the girl has no right to
speak instead of/before the father or the defendant.

Now as you aptly demonstrated, that is not the only way to explain the
parasha. But, as I stressed before, I am not trying to establish
whether or not that Sifrei is halakha pessuqa. You demonstrated that
there is tension even within the Sifrei. However, I did want to
demonstrate that it is not true that there is no statement/view in
'Hazal that impedes on a woman's right to express herself in court.
Sure enough, someone has to stand up for her rights, but it ain't
necessarily her.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Barukh She-Amar Elucidated
* The Anatomy of a Beracha
* Basic Building Blocks of Jewish Prayer