[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:

> > 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.

Are you saying here that you think the Sifri is contradicting itself?
Because the comment about the father being the toveah and us learning from
this pasuk that the toveah speaks first is also on 22.17 (the Yalkut has the
one comment virtually right after the other, the Sifri does separate them
slightly, but not materially) - and that can only be a comment on the civil
litigation bit of it.  (Of course, it is also a strange limud, because
nowhere do we find the defendant speaking either, so how do we know that the
toveah spoke first in this case).

It seems to me far more straightforward to learn that the Sifri sees 22:17,
not as a continuation of 22:15, but as the commencement of the civil
litigation, and it is as plantiff that the mother or girl cannot speak
instead of/before the father or husband, and it is as plantiff that the
father speaks (first).  All in all it is a very strange Sifri, and it is
perhaps not so surprising that the Ramban chose to ignore it.

 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.

As I also pointed out, while the gemora in Shavuos 30a does not prevent, it
does suggest that it is not customary for a woman to do so, and that most
women send somebody else.

> --
> Arie Folger,

Regards

Chana