[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Arie Folger]

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Meir Shinnar<chidekel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I did not make any inferences as to whether such a prohibition is
eternally applicable, whether it is a true derasha or an asmakhta or
even less, whether it is about the essential nature of tzni'ut or
societal, and your analysis is very interesting. However, You had
rethorically implied categorically that there is no reason to see any
tzni'ut impediment for a woman to argue before beit din.

Despite your reference to the Torah Temimah, who is entitled to his
own way to see things, the context here is parents representing their
daughter in beit din against defamation by her just married to groom.
In that context, Rashi quotes the Sifrei (IIRC §236) that "from here
[we learn] that the woman has no permission to talk before the man."
Which man? You mean the order in which they speak? In that case, why
would the parents represent her? And why would Rashi particularly hang
this maamar onto the dibbur hamatchil veamar avi hana'ara, which
implies that the mother doesn't speak either?

Does that mean that we should prohibit all public actions and speeches
by women? You make cogent arguments to come to different conclusions,
or at least to show that the current practice is at odds with such
values in most of the Orthodox world, though regarding religious roles
there is greater reticence. However, I did not enter that discussion.
I just pointed out that there are maamarei Chazal that say exactly
what you implied is inconceivable, and indeed, in your response, you
write:

> 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.

Back to lurking...
-- 
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