[Avodah] Tzeni'us and gender roles

[Chana Luntz]

RAF writes:

> Beautiful hypothesis. However, lacking strong proof, you should keep
> in mind that you may or may not be right.

Certainly I may not be right, especially when it comes to why women are not
permitted to be witnesses - given that the derivation is from a pasuk.  It
is harder to say that I may not be right vis a vis litigants, when this is
what the gemora says.  As mentioned, the gemora in Shavuos states flat out
that "lav orta meshum kol kavuda bas melech penima! - ie it is not customary
for women [to come to court as litigants] because of kol kavuda.  This after
stating earlier that if the discussion was about litigants, not witnesses,
"ki anashim ba'in l'din v'nashim ain bain l'din" - ie can you say that men
come for judgement and women do not come for judgement? [and hence the pasuk
must be talking about witnesses].  And then Tosphos says there that the
reason we can't say that the same thing about witnesses is because of the
rule that we cannnot have evidence eid mipi eid, and hence if the women were
to be witnesses, they would have to come.

 Data point: the maamar
> 'Hazal I quoted from Rashi states melamed she-ein la-isha *reshut*
> ledabber bifnei ha-ish.
> 
> According to your beautiful theory, the maamar should have taught:
> "she-ein ha-isha *tzerikha*" or "*'hayyavet,*" "le-dabber bifnei
> ha-ish."

Well not necessarily - it might be that at least with some there is a
natural inclination rant and rail at him for the humiliation he has caused
her, and it may be that she is not permitted to do that for her own
protection, or to protect the court from making things even more awful than
they already are.  The problem with your making this into a general blanket
prohibition, rather than one specific to the case in hand is that, for
example, women have an explicit Torah mandated speaking part when it comes
to chalita, which is a case both of speaking in front of a beis din and of
speaking in front of the man who, but for the court case, would be her
husband.  And then you have the "lav orta" of the gemora - not that they
can't but that they generally don't (or perhaps shouldn't).

I am not necessarily wedded to the theory - what I was trying to show though
was that RHS/RMB's theory, while I think completely off track when it comes
to general public roles, runs much much closer to the sources when it comes
to litigation/witnessing.

> Kol tuv,
> -- 
> Arie Folger,

Regards

Chana