There is an online forum for educators called "lookjed." Over the last five years I have contributed a thought here and there on different subjects which arise. Of late, my responses have been more limited to subject matters - or responses of others to certain subject matters - that bother me.
A question was asked about what seems to be a disturbing mishnah in Pirkei Avos:
משנה מסכת אבות פרק א משנה ה
[ה] יוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים אומר יהי ביתך פתוח לרוחה ויהיו עניים בני ביתך ואל תרבה שיחה עם האשה באשתו אמרו קל וחומר באשת חברו מכאן אמרו חכמים כל זמן שאדם מרבה שיחה עם האשה גורם רעה לעצמו ובוטל מדברי תורה וסופו יורש גיהנום:
Loosely translated:
Yosi ben Yochanan, a man of Jerusalem, says. "Let your home be open wide, treat the poor as members of your household, and do not converse excessively with the woman." They said this about his own wife [alternatively: 'about one's own wife'], surely it applies to his friend's wife. Consequently, the sages said, 'All the time a person converse excessively with the woman causes evil to himself, neglects Torah study, and will eventually inherit Gehinnom.'
Obviously, this mishnah seems to imply that men and women socializing is just about the worst thing people could do - putting the onus on men against talking to women, as if women were pariahs, or something like that. Emphasis on seems to imply
The question was posed:
I am finding it challenging to figure out how to present this in a way that is, frankly, not offensive to a modern audience, particularly to a class of questioning modern orthodox high school age students.
One of the respondents wrote the following:Though I think I can explain the basic values being expressed, I personally find the words "they said this about his own wife" to be the most challenging.
I don't think there is any honest way around the fact that this mishnah is disparaging to women. I have looked at traditional interpretations that attempt to soften it, but none is really convincing. If you interpret "sicha" as "gossip" instead of "conversation" then you still have the question why women and wives are singled out, as rechilut is disapproved in communication with anybody, not just women.
This is probably the single most prominent negative statement about women in the whole of rabbinic literature. It seems to me that the only way to deal with it honestly and in a way that has credibility to women today, is to acknowledge that it is negative, and face the issue of how to deal with those few unfortunate negative comments about women in rabbinic literature. As I note in my commentary, the Talmud reports that Beruriah, daughter of Chanania ben Teradion, wife of Rabbi Meir and a respected scholar in her own right, ridiculed this mishnah
This is what irked me. After the above respondent makes a comment about how there are two sides - as much as there are negative comments about women in the works of the rabbis, there are positive ones as well and therefore "even traditionalists—and I am not one—have a choice on what to follow."
With respect to the non-traditionalist, here is a different perspective from an always-trying-to-
improve traditionalist:
I would like to address the comments of the respondent, and the difference between the question (how can I reconcile this passage I do not understand?) and the above response (the rabbis are disparaging to women).
A number of years ago, I came across a book entitled "Women in Judaism" by Leonard Swidler, and I was appalled to see how one who is a professor could be so biased, not to mention ignorant, of any true understanding of Judaism. The way he presents women in Judaism, and Talmudic quotes in particular, is downright disturbing and offensive.
I am not going to be the one who says that some statements about women which appear in rabbinic writings are not troubling. They are troubling. But that is because, I feel, they are misunderstood, misrepresented, and looked at through a myopic lens that assumes the rabbis were "a bunch of chauvinistic jerks who looked at women in only one way."
This is not to suggest ignorance on my part of some injustices in the law. No less than Rabbi Akiva was well aware that there were problems in the interpretation of certain laws, and set to mend those errors in his own application of the law. Rabbi Akiva was, I daresay, a forward thinking feminist in his day (who, were we to combine two rabbinic statements about his being responsible for the continuation of Torah through the five students he taught after the deaths of his original thousands and his telling his students that "sheli v'shelakhem shelah hi" - all of our Torah knowledge is a credit to my wife - credits all of Torah thought and knowledge to a woman), was a pretty bright guy who couldn't miss this mishnah. And if he had such profound respect for his wife and for women (See Rabbi Jonathan Duker's chapter on Rabbi Akiva in his "The Spirits Behind the Law"), I don't believe he would let Yosi ben Yochanan's comments go down without a fight.
So I don't think that saying "I don't think there is any honest way around the fact that this mishnah is disparaging to women" is very honest.
Because if you are looking at any quote that seems troubling merely on its simplistic meaning, you're going to have many, many, many problems. Take the bracha of "she'lo asani ishah" as an example (see here and here) – anyone who finds offense in that bracha does not understand what a bracha is, or what that bracha means. Just because you can't see "any honest way" does not mean there isn't one.
As far as saying "This is probably the single most prominent negative statement about women in the whole of rabbinic literature" – Dr. Swidler would disagree with you on that, and does so in his book, as he seems to have a vendetta against rabbinic literature and rabbinic Judaism in its treatment of women.
And so I propose, in opposition to your approach that maintains we must "acknowledge that it is negative, and face the issue of how to deal with those few unfortunate negative comments about women in rabbinic literature" that we need not acknowledge that it is negative, because it could be one of the most obvious thoughts you will read today.
If we are merely translating phrases and not understanding them a. in context, and b. in the manner in which they are meant, then we are being disrespectful to ourselves and our heritage by thinking those old rabbis were so dumb that they would say these things, not to mention have to answer to their wives who they probably talked to every now and then to tell them how their day went.
I am surprised that one would bring Bruriah as an example, because it seems (at least according to Rashi in Avodah Zarah 18b) that she fell into the exact trap of what the mishnah refers to - a teaching which the respondent claims she ridiculed.
Getting back to Rabbi Akiva for a moment, the first comment Rabbi Akiva makes in Avot (3:17) is that "mockery and levity bring a man to immorality – schok v'kalut rosh margilin et ha'adam l'ervah." Perhaps this is a hint to the meaning of the mishnah which begged this initial question and discussion.
Let us now examine the mishnah. And let us keep in mind that language is very important. The mishnah does not say "Do not speak with women (נשים)." It does not even say "Do not speak with a woman." It says "Do not speak with ha-ishah - האשה – the woman."
Let me call your attention to the great verse in Kohelet 7:26:
וּמוֹצֶא אֲנִי מַר מִמָּוֶת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר הִיא מְצוֹדִים וַחֲרָמִים לִבָּהּ אֲסוּרִים יָדֶיהָ טוֹב לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים יִמָּלֵט מִמֶּנָּה וְחוֹטֵא יִלָּכֶד בָּהּ:
" And I find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, her hands are bonds; whoever is good in God's sight will escape from her, and a sinner will be taken by her."
Could I be such a fool that I would bring this disgusting verse from Kohelet to prove the argued point that the rabbis were a bunch of sadistic clods who were totally out to lunch when it comes to how to relate to women? Not exactly (a fool, that is).
You see, Kohelet has a different verse which is contradictory to this one:
רְאֵה חַיִּים עִם אִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתָּ כָּל יְמֵי חַיֵּי הֶבְלֶךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כֹּל יְמֵי הֶבְלֶךָ כִּי הוּא חֶלְקְךָ בַּחַיִּים וּבַעֲמָלְךָ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עָמֵל תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ:
" Enjoy life with the woman whom you love all the days of the life of your vanity, whom He has given you under the sun, all the days of your vanity, for that is your portion in life and in your toil that you toil under the sun." (9:9)
[Life is vanity; not the woman you love]
Unfortunately, the English doesn't do the Hebrew justice. The woman who is more bitter than death is "ha'ishah" while the woman with whom you will enjoy life is "ishah asher ahavta."
There is one difference – a letter heh – ה – at the beginning of the word describing the (bad) woman..
I hope it's not too far a stretch, nor too offensive, to suggest we can agree that as much as we like to think every person is a wonderful human being, that there are a few bad apples out there. There are some people who, in fact, are downright nasty. There are those (men and) women with "hearts of snares and nets."
This is the kind of woman Yosi ben Yochanan is suggesting to stay away from. While the man from Yerushalayim was talking to men, he could have easily said the same thing to women about men that need to be avoided: the kind that will seduce you away from your spouse, and from your normal life, by making promises of all kinds of things in exchange for…
If a married woman (Eishet chaveiro) is talking too much with a man who is not her husband, there is a problem with her marriage and with her husband's marriage. And the man who is seeking this social relationship with Eishet chaveiro is barking up a tree he should not be barking up.
Ask any man if he would be happy if his wife developed a regular social relationship with another man. Most normal men (with a head on the shoulders) would not be pleased with the prospect. Ask any normal woman if she'd be pleased if her husband developed a regular social relationship with another woman. I would be willing to bet the answer is NO. The intellectual stimulation will translate to the libido sooner than you think. Which is exactly what Rabbi Akiva in 3:17 is talking about.
If you think I am way off, I apologize for your naivete.
I heard one more interpretation of the meaning of "ha'ishah" from Rabbi Avner Kavas. He suggests that the letter heh at the beginning and the end of the word in question makes the numerical value of a word referring to woman the same as the numerical value of ish – man. (5+5 = 10 (the 'yud')) His point is that there are social rules which are the hallmark of a healthy society in which men and women interact, but know full well where to draw the line, mostly on account of the differences in the way male and female emotions operate. And yes, there are differences – BIG ones.
He suggests that "ha'ishah" refers to "the woman" who conducts herself as if she is "one of the guys" – in other words, pays no heed to gender differences and the direction minds can operate (please note I did not say "do operate") when one creates a social intimacy that can open the door to an inappropriate relationship.
As far as "b'ishto amru" (the difficult phrase raised by the questioner) – some say it refers specifically to the wife of Yosi ben Yochanan. Though I can't verify this notion about her. Rabbi Chiya had a horrible wife (see Yevamot 63a-b, right at the connection between the two sides of the page), but he recognized that his having his wife kept him from falling prey to sin (which indicates he was a normal man).
I will say this: Two of the women who are depicted as "ishto" in the beginning of the Torah (as opposed to "v'ishto") are Chava – in particular in the aftermath of a conversation she had with her husband that brought about the Fall of Man through the eating of a fruit, and Lot's wife – who, at least according to most interpretations, had a spicy mouth that said a little too much and caused her to get into a little bit of trouble when the city of Sodom was overturned. (Yes, I know Sarah is also called "ishto" many times, but for some reason, the rabbis were a lot more positive about the role she played in the Torah, versus the roles Chava and Mrs. Lot played – most notably through their speech and conversations).
Sometimes it is beneficial to find the words the person is utilizing in its original source – everything goes back in one form or another to Tanakh. And if we look at Yosi ben Yochanan's statement – at least the part when he mentioned "the woman" or "his wife" as a quote rather than a blanket statement about women in general, we can understand that he was talking about certain types of women, as opposed to ALL women.
Read the follow up to this posting here
No comments:
Post a Comment