It Can Be That Not Everything is Black and White

This is primarily a response to this article by Shoshanna Jaskoll, which was largely a response to this article/blog post of Rabbi Pruzansky (and what a maelstrom that opened up! - all based on what I believe were either misunderstandings, or more likely, agenda driven haters)

To understand anything, or to judge anything, context is very important. We’ve all heard the phrase “You had to be there” when a friend referenced a humorous anecdote. If we don’t understand or appreciate the context in which a good line was uttered, the joke is not only lost, but we, the listeners, feel as if we’ve been had. That story was certainly NOT amusing, if we hear it out of context.

Rabbis have surely taught that men and women can’t or shouldn’t be “just” friends. But what does that mean? Billy Crystal said the same thing in “When Harry Met Sally.” Did his character have a deeper understanding of the male mindset than rabbis?

Context plays a big role in understanding this thought. Should a man consider a woman to be his buddy, that he calls to hang out with on a Saturday night? If I were her husband, or if I were the wife of the man in the story, I’d view that relationship as odd. And even if both parties are single, unless they’ve gotten the “this relationship might go somewhere” off the table, because neither party is interested, one wonders what is going on.

Let us accept that it is possible that neither one is sexually interested in the other. So context matters – it is possible. And it is possible that if this man saw this woman in a state of undress, his reaction would be, “Would you please get dressed? You’re making me uncomfortable.”

There are men who see women in a state of undress on countless occasions during any given day, and they don’t view what they see as sexual. They are called doctors. And they are given a pass in Halakha called “Tarud B’M’lakhtam.” They are engaged in their work, and are not interested in seeing their patients as sexual objects.

I don’t preside over conversions, so I don’t know the standard or the protocol of the role of Beit Din when it comes to being present for the immersion of the converting individual.  But I read Rav Moshe Feinstein’s responsa (Yoreh Deah I:47) about how we know that unmonitored cow milk is kosher in the United States (and is never secretly swapped with, say, pig’s milk) because of a principle of “Yediah K’R’iyah” – that knowing is like seeing. One of the sources Rav Moshe brought to prove his point was our exact case – of a woman immersing for conversion, as discussed in Tractate Yebamot 45b. Tosafot there (last on the page) say that the Beit Din members are necessary for when she accepts Mitzvot (then and only then do they need to be present), but “obviously” they are not present in the room when she immerses (perhaps the female mikvah attendant is present) and when she emerges from the mikveh they “know” she immersed.

I absolutely agree that ONLY women should be involved in women’s immersion. I don’t understand the contrary view to Tosafot (if there is one). 

Having said that, I think we can consider giving the rabbis a little more credit than assuming they are all perverts who get kicks out of seeing all women who are about to join Am Yisrael as sexual objects. 

Certainly there are some “rabbis” who have proven this statement wrong over the last few years. But they are the overwhelming minority of rabbis, and they carried many red flags which were ignored in what should have been a better scrutiny of their too-personalized conversion processes.

Context matters. Most people who see a woman nursing in a public place don’t stare at her breast. They actually wish she’d cover up more. They don’t want to see her breast!

Ms. Jaskoll claims there are women out there who felt uncomfortable by the process. I will not deny that that is the case. And absolutely, if the stories I’ve read are true, there is a tremendous flaw in the system. And while the rabbi who said, “We don’t see anything. It’s only for an instant. There is no reason for her to feel uncomfortable” is clearly in the negative in the sensitivity department, there is still merit to what he says. The rabbis (if present they must be) want to see NOTHING – not a naked woman, and not even her hair above the water.

I’ve been present when a man converted, and the lights were turned out, he called to the rabbis when he was ready, and they counted to three, he dunked and they peaked in the room to see that they couldn’t see him above the water. 

Why that’s not acceptable for everyone is incomprehensible to me. 

And if indeed the rabbis need to ask certain questions while the person is in the water, on the verge of dunking, these questions can be asked through a microphone system that eliminates any reason whatsoever of being in the same space, however that might be defined, while the person feels "vulnerable" and "exposed." 

I am not sure why SJ had "a hard time commenting politely" to some of the things RSP mentioned. The first example about “Halacha, minhag, psak – a purely rabbinical role” does not suggest women’s points of view have no place. SJ even said herself “People far more learned in Jewish law than I am have suggested concrete alternatives with in Halacha” (though Rabbi Seth Farber, to whose opinion SJ provided a link, presents an emotional argument and not a halakhic one), and RSP was merely saying that the conversion process doesn’t have a problem that needs revision – read his point in context! He was saying that the system he has presided over has weeded out ulterior-motivated converts, and has produced Torah observant converts. No knock on women there. 

Further, that he is stepping down from a committee in which he would have to operate based on others’ rules has nothing to do with “women and converts.” A person who volunteers to work on a committee has every right to resign from such a position when the “rules of the game” of that committee change. Imagine saying, “I am committed to doing it this way, but please count me out if this system were no longer in place.” "I am happy to voluntarily serve as gabbai/president of the shul as long as the constitution of the shul goes unchanged. Once it changes due to Board input, I resign from my volunteer position." What could be wrong with that?

The rabbi may be uncomfortable with the Hatafat Dam ritual. But rest assured that every man upon whom I have performed it (I am mohel) has been told from the very beginning that this is going to happen. And while the thought may seem weird at the outset, once talked out and understood, it is not. So let’s please take this one off the table in the “not about YOU and YOUR comfort" line.

I am not suggesting I know what a woman feels. I do not. But I cannot accept SJ’s “It cannot be” statements.

To recap, she wrote what is included below in quotes:

“It cannot be that the same rabbis who insist that modesty laws be followed because men are so easily aroused then claim that there is no danger of arousal when a woman stands naked in a mikva.”

It can be. Just as a doctor sees a naked woman as a patient and not an object, and is not aroused (were he aroused with every woman, he’d really have to seek a different profession) it absolutely can be that there are rabbis who do conversions all the time and focus on the neshama and the person’s face, and have no interest in the fact that a naked woman is in a pool of water. A rabbi who cannot distinguish MUST recuse himself from participating in this aspect of conversion.

“It cannot be that the same Judaism that asks women to take into consideration — to the point of altering their behavior and dress — the needs and minds of men, does not require that men take into consideration the needs and minds of women.”

Again – context matters. If the rabbis are indeed seeing only the woman’s hair immerse, and are talking to her as a human being undergoing the most significant change in her life to date, then they are talking to a soul. Not to a woman who happens to be naked. That “reality” is irrelevant to their job – they are tarud b’m’lakhtam. If they are, God forbid, not able to distinguish, once again, they should recuse themselves.

“It cannot be that the same rabbis who tell a woman to be modest, act modest and feel modest then tell her to ignore and proceed to themselves invalidate that feeling of modesty!”

It can be that they don’t ignore modesty because they take every precaution to avoid the extreme awful stories SJ shared. Those she describes should not be in the conversion business.

Her conclusion: “Either men’s sexuality is such that women must take extreme care in dress and circumstance, or men can gain control over their thoughts and urges.”

With all due respect, Context changes everything.

“So, either release us from the responsibility of your sins, or listen to our voices and stop forcing us to betray those same standards of modesty you hold us to.”

No one forces a woman to convert. No one forces a woman to betray standards of modesty. The choice to convert is made either by someone who is sincere in one's efforts to get closer to Hashe, or who has an ulterior motive.

A woman is not forced to betray standards of modesty. When her conversion immersion is done properly, her dignity should remain intact, her modesty should be affirmed, and the entire immersion should be followed through with a Beit Din who don’t know her and ideally won’t encounter her in any other context (as RSP put it, let her sponsoring rabbi stay out of the immersion, and let him be the one who will encounter her in other contexts, just not this one).

Life is full of black, white, and much much much more gray. It cannot be that SJ's viewpoint is the only viewpoint out there, and that the way she sees things is the only way to see them.