Originally published 1/23/08, 10:19 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From the Avodah List
From: Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
-----
From the Avodah List
From: Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
-----
On Aishdas Avodah, it was said, "that the halacha of 'tzarichl'hisracheik min hanashim meod meod' is based on a totally different societal basis, one where men and women by default were entirely separate, and any contact between the sexes was dangerous. Nowadays,when society is in any case so mixed, I don't think the halacha expects me (or wants me) to be anti-social and davka avoid sitting at a table where a girl is sitting."
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin comes to this exact conclusion in his Equality Lost (Urim: 1999), in chapter nine, "Hirhur and Community Norms". He asks the question, "Is there halachic justification for the relatively open interaction between men and women in much of today's Orthodoxy, and if so, what is it?"
Rabbi Henkin first examines Ketuvot 17a and Berachot 20a, in which two rabbis justify social intercourse with women on the grounds that they personally on are such levels that this poses no problem of tzniut or hirhur for themselves.
Sefer haChinuch 188 says no one today may take such liberties with himself.
But Rabbi Hai Gaon in Rabbenu Yonah to Berachot 25a, Sefer Mitzvot Katan 30, and the Ritva to the end of Kiddushin, all say that if a man knows that he himself is on this level, he can permit for himself the same sorts of acts that the rabbis in the Gemara did.
But this only permits openness for exceptional individuals; what of societal openness? The Maharshal in his Yam Shel Shlomo to Kiddushin, 4:25, says that if an individual knows that he can overcome his impulses, he may speak to an ervah and such; he also quotes the Ritva
in full. But he adds, "The whole world relies on this in using the services of, and speaking to, and looking at, women". Rabbi Henkin notes that this is in contrast to Ritva, he spoke only of exceptional individuals; Rabbi Henkin notes that Maharshal's chiddush is that "When an entire community is accustomed to mingling with and speaking to women, on the other hand, their familiarity may be relied on to forestall sinful thoughts".
Rabbi Henkin notes that Maharshal's source is Tosafot to Kiddushin 82a. R. Acha bar Ada explained his special liberty saying "hakol leshem shamayim", but Tosafot there say "On [hakol leshem shamayim] we rely nowadays [in] that we make use of the services of women". Rabbi Henkin says, "The Tosafot employ this principle to justify widespread practicess. This is precisely the equation employed by Maharshal".
Rabbi Henkin says, "It can be said that the "whole world" of modern Orthodoxy relies implicitly on this Maharshal in using the services of and speaking to and looking at women".
Rabbi Henkin then notes two additional authorities who follow this approach:
1) The Maharshal's student, Rabbi Mordechai Yafeh, in the Levush haTechelet vehaChur (Orach Chayim), no. 36. There, as opposed to Sefer Chassidim 393, he permits saying "shehasimcha beme'ono" at a sheva berachot even when there is mixed seating.
2) Rabbi Yechiel Michal Epstein in the Aruch haShulchan (Orach Chayim 75:7) permits saying Shema in the presence of a woman with uncovered hair, for although she is forbidden to do thus, and although she is technically ervah in this, this has become normal, and men are inured
to it, and he may say Shema in her presence. (Rabbi Henkin notes and vehementally opposes the common misinterpretation, that the AH is permitting women to go without a hair covering - rather, the AH is saying that bedieved, men may say Shema in her presence, but she is still forbidden to dress thusly.)
Rabbi Henkin adds a caveat: "[T]he above applies only to mingling of men and women that is innocent in and of itself. No degree of frequency and familiarity can legitimize what is intrinsically or intentionally sexually stimulating. Examples are immodest or provocative dress, erotic performances and entertainment, and other pitfalls too numerous to be listed".
A second caveat: "[T]here is no halachic imperative to introduce mingling of the sexes where it does not already exist. What we have said here is a justification of community practices, not an agenda. It is much easier to legitimize existing practices than to justify new ones. To do the latter, we would have to take into account the approaches of far more acharonim than just the Yam Shel Shelomoh, the Levush, and the Aruch haShulchan". Rabbi Henkin had indeed previously said, "We have seen then, that there exists a trend - not a dominant trend, but a trend - within halachic thought that in interaction between the sexes that might ordinarily lead to hirhur, frequency and familiarity of contact can be a mitigating factor, and that a community can legitimately rely on this 'in using the services of, and speaking to, and looking at, women', to use the words of the Maharshal".
I am no authority in this, at all. But it occurs to me that when, in Pirkei Avot 1:5, we are told to not have too much sicha with women, many of the commentators say that this is speaking of davka inane or immodest conversation, but not meaningful conversation. At the very least, they say this of the stricture against too much sicha with one's own wife, and since this Mishna speaks of one's own wife and a
stam women as equals, and one's fellow's wife as kal vachomer, then any heterim on one's wife ought to apply to a stam woman, and even to one's fellow's wife (because of dayyo). Thus, it should seem that based on this, if one is sure to limit his conversation to meaningful matters, then social intercourse between the sexes is less problematic. In particular, Rav Hirsch in his perush to Avot makes a large point of the fact that sicha is davka inane conversation. And he
never limits this to only one's wife; one can only assume that Rav Hirsch applies this to the entire Mishna. It is thus interesting that Rabbi Henkin in a footnote says, "Mixing of the sexes at weddings, social gatherings, and even Torah lectures was also characteristic of the strictly Orthodox Germanic-Dutch communities".
As an aside, Rav Hirsch to Avot 3:4 says that divrei Torah doesn't mean davka Torah per se, but rather anything (ANYTHING, even something totally secular) that contributes to a Torah-type lifestyle of goodness and modesty and honesty, etc. The parallel to Torah im Derech Eretz is obvious: just as Rav Hirsch makes a large point of stressing that secular life and matters and learning are elevated to Torah when they infused with and directed based on Torah, so too he says that secular conversations become Torah when they are regarding a life that is conducted along Torah lines. In other words: secular conversations regarding a Torah im Derech Eretz lifestyle, these conversations are themselves divrei Torah.
Mikha'el Makovi
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
3 comments:
What is sometimes lost in the discussion around an issue such as this one is the question of the ideal. Included in that consideration is a perception of reasons for heter. The discussion usually is defined in a b'dieved type of presentation -- if people are doing this, we can find a reason why it is permitted. There is another level to this discussion, though: should people be doing this? Is there a value to coed events, for example, and should we strive to create a community of this nature? Then we can ask the question of whether our sexual instincts can be directed in a specific way to achieve this goal. If there is no l'chatchila reason for doing so why bother -- except to find a heter for people who are doing it anyway. But the real question is whether there is a reason for coeducation and the we can ask whether it inherently presents other halachic problems. And in this regard we have to be doubly sure that we are not incorporating a lowering of a sexual standard by adopting the "more innocent" aspects of our society's sexualith which still is halachically problematic.
As a further aspect of this question, we also have to ask what is the ideal sexual attitude that is the goal of Torah. Perhaps the sexual instinct can be channelled and that we can lessen this drive to enable coed events in a broader perspective -- but is that what the Torah wants. I have often wondered if the call for separation found in many Torah sources actually not only increases sexual tension between the sexes but fosters it. I remember one rabbi saying to me years ago that the Torah does not want men and women to have Platonic relationships -- not that it is impossible as you will often hear (i.e. people can't control sexual feelings except for yechidim segulim) but that this is not the ideal. IOW, this rabbi's argument was that what is necessary to create a halachically acceptable mingling of the sexes is not the connection of male and female that the Torah wants. I took it as something to think about. The whole issue of sexuality and male-female relationships demands further investigation. Thinking about this issue, for example, has also got me to think about whether there is a generic permissible sexuality that the Torah envisions -- so the coed function is still suppose to have a halachically acceptable different atmosphere -- but what is that?
Rabbi Ben Hecht
In an ideal world, all men would spend all day in the Bais Medrash learning while the women stayed home making dinner and raising the children. The local goyim, understanding that our God is their God too and that we are His prefered People, would spend their time supporting us in this lifestyle (see somewhere in Sanhedrin, I'm bad with page numbers). In such an ideal world, there would never be any casual contact between men and women, thus the problem obviates itself.
This ideal is clearly not currently attainable so the question really is: Given that God would know that we must struggle to survive in an imperfect world, to what lengths would He approve of us going to in terms of unavoidable casual relationships?
I'll tell you what: my ideal wife won't be cooking and raising kids all day (the most promising relationship I ever had with a girl was the one with whom I argued my support of Rav Hirsch's strictures on Rambam versus her support of Rambam); and my ideal gentile won't be my servant.
Mikha'el Makovi
Post a Comment