NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/soc/culture/jewish/26231

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 3.9 KB | 90 lines

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!tulane!bourbon!david
From: [e-mail] (David Kaufmann)
Subject: Re: Torah is the center of every Jew? (was Orthadox Judaism and women)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Department of Electrical Engineering, Tulane Univ.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-10026]: bourbon
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:12:05 GMT
Lines: 77

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Maddi
Hausmann
) writes:

>
>Well, I might think you're a sexist, David, but you are always
>respectful to my point of view in our discussions, and I appreciate
>that very much.

Just doing my part as a gentleman (insert smiley). Seriously, I do try
to respect differences, provided they are presented respectfully.
 I cannot say the same of Dima.o I, too, wast take a Halachic
>>The danger in this, though, as your "sample" demonstrates, is that
>>"random" expressions may be taken out of context and/or not at all
>>representative.
>
>I agree that further research is in order.  But don't blame him
>for suggesting a new line of inquiry!
>
Rather than blame, I think it's a fruitful (pun alert) line of
inquiry. But it should be done properly, without flames.

>Perhaps a comparison could be made of laws that treat men and
>women differently.  One of my old "favorites" was how the fine
>for raping a woman was to be paid to her father or husband,
>not to her.
>
Wait! If a man raped a married woman, the man got the death penalty.
If the man raped an unmarried woman, he had to marry her and pay a
fine, and could not divorce her. She could refuse the marriage.

The fine was paid to the father because the woman was not yet an
adult. (Otherwise, it was paid to her.) Corporal punishment was also
meted out.

Now, before you sneer at this, remember the economics of the time:
there were no outside the home jobs (for men or women), so economic
independence as we know was rare (for both, actually). The economic
unit was the family, not the individual.

Let's consider the possible punishments for rape: fine, corporal
punishment, death (there was no incarceration in those days). The
Biblical rapist received the severest that applied and the woman's
dignity was protected as much as possible. (You might remember that
Abimelech gave Sarah a large sum of money as proof of her good name.)

If the woman was "independent," then the fine was paid to her. The
provision for marriage was to guarantee her dignity. (Let's also not
forget that "sensibilities" change.) The Talmud discusses this issue
at greater length. (BTW, the fine was a huge sum.)

Given the socio-economic context (bet you'd never thought I'd say
that), the Torah was and is extremely sensitive to the woman's rights
and dignity. (Reading it as you did shows the danger of literalism and
not studying the history of the law.) In fact, given the way women are
treated today, it was more sensitive. I refer to the fact that the
burden of proof is now on the woman, whereas this was/is not the case
Judaically.

(BTW, I don't see this as a case of a law that treats men and women
differently, since it doesn't apply to men at all.)

(One other note: I really don't like analyzing Torah in isolation.
Even looking at the surrounding text gives a different picture;
studying the Talmudic, midrashic and halachic literature on the
subject, without cynicism, might give one at least an appreciation for
Jewish sensitivity.)

I do hope you'll read Frankiel's _Voice of Sarah_. I don't think it
will change your perspective by itself, but it's thought-provoking
reading even for this "sexist."

As always, best,

David Kaufmann
INTERNET:    [e-mail]