December 10, 2014 12:20 pm at 12:20 pm #614430
Instead of debating faux topics such as “Are women really Jewish?”, why don’t we try debating a real topic such as why there are no charedi women MKs and why Shas and United Torah Judaism seem to be utterly disinclined to have any. Are women fit only to vote and not be voted for? Like a late Jewish woman used to say, “Can we talk?”December 10, 2014 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm #1049679
Men and women have different roles in life. There is no reason why women should be in the public spotlight, something contrary to Jewish tradition and law. And there is no reason why the male legislators cannot represent the needs of the tzibbur. This idea of everything being equal and men and women needing to be and do the same thing is only a recent secular phenomena of the last century that has no historical basis and runs contrary to nature and common sense.December 10, 2014 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm #1049681YW Moderator-29 👨💻Moderator
Maybe we can talk about something else . . .
(Just anticipating the chassidish vs. feminist vs. yeshivish vs. YU responses from all other threads converging onto this one. )December 10, 2014 1:12 pm at 1:12 pm #1049682nishtdayngesheftParticipant
A good idea would be to vote for one to replace Lipman and Piron.December 10, 2014 1:29 pm at 1:29 pm #1049683Little FroggieParticipant
Maybe they’re taking a tip from Leah and Dina, who were ??????? and bode them no good.
Maybe they’re applying rashi in chumash, ???? ??? ?????, ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????.December 10, 2014 2:06 pm at 2:06 pm #1049684
Because not everyone gets to be in the knesset. Only like one in a thousand.
V’isha achas b’chol eleh lo matzasi.
QEDDecember 10, 2014 2:08 pm at 2:08 pm #1049685Patur Aval AssurParticipantDecember 10, 2014 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm #1049686
C’est la vie.
Quoth Mao (of all people): “Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.”
🙂December 10, 2014 3:21 pm at 3:21 pm #1049687
Maybe they’re taking a tip from Leah and Dina, who were ??????? and bode them no good.
I seem to recall it bode Leah another son.December 10, 2014 3:54 pm at 3:54 pm #1049688gavra_at_workParticipant
Maybe they’re taking a tip from Leah and Dina, who were ??????? and bode them no good.
I seem to recall it bode Leah another son.
And did he end up as a nice Jewish professional doctor or lawyer? No. Not even an accountant. He ended up shaming the family by going to Kollel!!
:)jkDecember 10, 2014 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm #1049689MDGParticipant
“Shas and United Torah Judaism seem to be utterly disinclined to have any.”
Interesting that you ask now. Two days ago, the Daf Yomi included the words that it’s a man way to conquer but not a woman’s.
Here is something I found online:
Here is a summary of the halakhic literature based on an excellent article by Rabbis Aryeh and Dov Frimer in 2007. In the book of Devarim (17:14-20) the Torah states the laws of appointing a Jewish King. The Midrashic commentary the Sifrei notes that the Torah mentions the word king three times. From the fact that the word king is mentioned three times we must learn something new each time it is mentioned. One of the three things learned is that you may appoint a king – but not a queen.
The Rambam codifies the halakha as follows. “We may not appoint a woman as king. When describing the monarchy, the Torah employs the male form of the word king and not the female. This principle also applies to all other positions of leadership within Israel. Only men should be appointed to fill them.” (Hilkhot Melakhim 1:5) The question we have before us is what is leadership or in Hebrew “serara”? Serara can be understood to be anyone who makes unilateral decisions. There are several rishonim (medieval halakhic decisors) such as the Hinukh, Rashi and Ran who disagree with the Rambam’s interpretation. They limit the scope to just a woman becoming a queen but they allow for a woman to have a leadership role. “
Besides the above halachic issue, there is also a tsniut issue.December 10, 2014 6:30 pm at 6:30 pm #1049691
MDG, what tsniut issue??!!
Lior, it is interesting that you, a man I presume, say, “There is no reason why women should be in the public spotlight, something contrary to Jewish tradition and law.”
Devorah & Shlomtzion are contrary to Jewish tradition?
I do not subscribe to the common (and infuriating) liberal fallacy that confuses equality with uniformity and presumes that an absence of the latter means a lack of the former. But neither is there any reason why women who are half of the tzibbur cannot represent the tzibbur equally well (or poorly, I suppose) as men. Something rankles me when women are deemed fit to work, support their families, pay taxes and vote, and otherwise do as they’re told, but are considered unsuited to stand for public office.December 10, 2014 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #1049692
Well, that’s the reason women don’t run for public office. They are already working to support their families, plus housework and taking care of children.December 10, 2014 7:33 pm at 7:33 pm #1049693apushatayidParticipant
Devorah and Shlomtzion are dead, as a result they are not going to step forward and see if the party leaders will put them on the slate. Why dont you speak with a few women who you feel would be good for the job, and have them speak with the party leaders. after they meet, perhaps you or they can report back with the results of the meeting.December 10, 2014 7:58 pm at 7:58 pm #1049694yytzParticipant
The Israeli charedi parties represent the right-wing of charedim. The “new charedim,” more moderate charedim, the “left-wing yeshivish,” American-olim who are charedim, etc., probably have a somewhat more open attitude toward women’s occupations and public positions.
There are quite a few charedi women who are doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. in America, and at least some in Israel. There are certainly charedi women in both countries who write books and articles and give public shiurim (to women); some even produce and direct their own films (for women only).
Something else to keep in mind that, according to some Torah teachings, everything a man accomplishes he owes to his wife’s merits. So perhaps there’s no specific need, in people’s minds, of women MKs, since women MK’s wives are ultimately responsible for all the good the MKs are able to do (either directly, through conversation, or in some mysterious spiritual way).
However, I agree with you that there is no real fundamental reason why women, including charedi women, couldn’t run for office. I think they will eventually, but perhaps not as part of one of the current charedi parties (because they wouldn’t want to do anything to offend the community’s kannoim), but instead through Likud or as an independent or something.
Some people would see the tsnius issue as being in the limelight where everyone can see you, as opposed to behind the scenes. But not everyone would agree with that interpretation of tsnius. Nowadays charedi publications don’t publish pictures of women, but that’s no reason not to elect them; they can just run stories in their newspapers about the women politicians without pictures.
Do any American Orthodox women hold political office? Just wondering.December 10, 2014 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm #1049696MDGParticipant
“MDG, what tsniut issue??!!”
Tsniut is harder to pin down. That’s why I did not say “halacha” in regards to tsniut as I did about being king and queen. Although there are some clear rules about Tsniut, it can be more subjective, as there can be more grey areas. How much exposure can a women do without being a turn-on, be it exposure of hair, skin, or voice (singing or talking)? How much appearing in public or on TV is too much? I’m not paskening; I’m just raising the issue.
It seems to me that the charaidi parties either hold like the Rambam or they are ultra strict on tsniut.
“Devorah & Shlomtzion are contrary to Jewish tradition?”
How did Devorah judge? How could she be a leader? 3 answers given:
1) Her judgements were considered as binding arbitration.
Hence she was not technically a real judge.
2) She ruled based on navua, not on her own.
3) She was the expert in law who told a court of men what to do.
In all three answers, Devorah was not the person making decisions as a leader.
I don’t know about Shlomtzion.December 10, 2014 8:54 pm at 8:54 pm #1049697lebidik yankelParticipant
It would be a pure pain in the neck to have charedi women MPs: Women charedim have pretty similar goals to men ones. So there isn’t any specific representation needed here. However it would be truly awkward honoring them at events, for them to be in private political meetings with jewish leaders, for them to speak at rallies and so on. So its not useful and only complicates matters.
So why have them – to make a point??December 10, 2014 9:24 pm at 9:24 pm #1049698oomisParticipant
There is only one reason why chareidi women are not in public office. It would considered untzniusdig for them, and therefore their husbands and Daas Torah would forbid it. I am not debating the right or wrong of taking that position. It is merely my observation.December 10, 2014 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #1049699
Why would there be an issue of serara? She isn’t in a “unilateral position” of power- she’s one more voting hand in the Knesset.
And the whole concept of the tznius aspect is so murky and imprecise that in the hands of the wrong people it could be applied to justifying the sartorial choices of the burqa ladies. I’m not necessarily equating the two points, just saying that technically their argument is yours just after it has already slipped down the slope.December 10, 2014 9:31 pm at 9:31 pm #1049700
Writersoul, the slippery slope goes both ways.December 10, 2014 11:39 pm at 11:39 pm #1049701
As my maggid shier once said ladies are not supposed to seen or heard meaning they shouldn’t talk loudly and shouldn’t appear in magazines etcDecember 10, 2014 11:50 pm at 11:50 pm #1049702
Are you trolling? Because a lot of the people you argue with are women.December 11, 2014 1:05 am at 1:05 am #1049703
Not true. I only argue with men.
I bicker with women.December 11, 2014 1:11 am at 1:11 am #1049704
Nie maybe they should accept that I’m rightDecember 11, 2014 1:24 am at 1:24 am #1049705
It is straight black and white halacha that women should minimize being in public.December 11, 2014 1:50 am at 1:50 am #1049706
Which explains the widespread vitamin D deficiency.December 11, 2014 1:55 am at 1:55 am #1049707
Thank you liorDecember 11, 2014 9:43 am at 9:43 am #1049708
yytz: “or as an independent”
Unfortunately (or, in the broader scheme of things, perhaps fortunately), there aren’t really independents in Israel. You need a list of 120 candidates and must win at least 4/120 seats in the Knesset.
So all that’s left is to join a party, which isn’t really so shayach, because a charedi party will never let women join and there will isn’t necessarily a reason for any other party to put up a charedi woman in a position high enough on the list that she’d actually end up in the Knesset. That said, why should she want to join another party? For the purposes of this discussion, I’m going to assume that a charedi woman would want to join a charedi party because she believes in their side of things… there are non-charedi religious women in other parties, after all.
DY: Absolutely. I’m not saying that it can’t be valid, just please provide me with the line that divides between not being able to be seen in public in Knesset and more extremist views. People have made the point of serara being an issue but it doesn’t seem to make sense to me. My point is merely that people seem to be going by visceral reactions- “there’s no way this could possibly be acceptable, after all no charedi woman’s ever done it, so it must be a tznius issue” without pointing out why it’s halachically worse than going to the grocery without a burqa. Or, if you don’t like taking things to the extreme, then even why it’s worse than a woman going out to work, which is a fait accompli these days in much of the charedi world. Nobody has pointed out a CLEAR DISTINCTION between the two that makes one valid and the other not.December 11, 2014 11:54 am at 11:54 am #1049709
WS, this a lot more public. Can I tell you where the line is precisely? No, but there’s got to be one, right?December 11, 2014 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm #1049710
Most working women don’t have a job requiring them to regularly stand up in public, be in the news regularly and get their face plastered on TV and the newspapers everyday. A public position, by nature, is not minimizing one’s public exposure.December 11, 2014 12:19 pm at 12:19 pm #1049711
Maybe they can bargain another party for the next seat on their list after the one they think they’ll win without the chareidi female rebel voteDecember 11, 2014 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm #1049712
DY: Considering that that’s the entire issue under debate, I don’t think that I can let you get away with that :).
Like I said: “My point is merely that people seem to be going by visceral reactions- “there’s no way this could possibly be acceptable, after all no charedi woman’s ever done it, so it must be a tznius issue” without pointing out why it’s halachically worse than going to the grocery without a burqa.” Or insert accepted female activity of your choice.December 11, 2014 1:33 pm at 1:33 pm #1049713
The Jewish Home has two religious women MKs (Orit Strock & Shuli Moallem-Refaeli) but, of course, they’re Zionists.
A hot rumor has it that the daughter of Rav Ovadia Yosef z”l, Adina Bar-Shalom, who founded the Haredi College (*Hamichlala Hacharedit*) in Jerusalem, may receive a high spot on former Likud MK Moshe Kahlon’s new list.
Shlomtzion Hamalka, the widow of Alexander Yannai, was queen of the Hasmonean state from roughly 76-67 BCE. She was Rav Shimon Ben-Shetach’s sister. The sources say very nice things about her (Megillat Ta’anit 11, Midrash Vayikra Raba, and a few other places). She undid much of her pro-Sadducee husband’s damage. Her brother’s reforms were successful and accepted partly because she backed him up. Her reign is the only bright spot in the latter years of the Hasmonean state.December 11, 2014 2:09 pm at 2:09 pm #1049714
WS, I don’t know what makes you dismiss the possibility that what you call a visceral reaction isn’t motivated by the same opinion which is actually the reason it’s not been done before.December 11, 2014 2:40 pm at 2:40 pm #1049715oomisParticipant
RebYidd23 LOL!!!!!!!!! More sunshine for all!December 11, 2014 2:46 pm at 2:46 pm #1049716interjectionParticipant
Something rankles me when women are deemed fit to work, support their families, pay taxes and vote, and otherwise do as they’re told, but are considered unsuited to stand for public office.
This is why they’re fighting for it.December 11, 2014 3:06 pm at 3:06 pm #1049717gavra_at_workParticipant
Most working women don’t have a job requiring them to regularly stand up in public, be in the news regularly and get their face plastered on TV and the newspapers everyday. A public position, by nature, is not minimizing one’s public exposure.
This. Otherwise, Serarah is not an issue as the Charaidi MKs follow the words of the Gedolim for every vote, so they have no leadership or any other power. If women were MKs (eg. Mrs. Porush), then her husband could be learning in Kollel while she parroted what the Gedolim said to say (as MK Porush does).
Lior must be right, that the Gedolim don’t believe having yet another woman in the limelight outweighs the additional Limud HaTorah that would be created if all of the MKs were women.December 11, 2014 6:48 pm at 6:48 pm #1049718
DY: Okay. So what is the reason that has given people that visceral reaction? You’re evading my point.
GAW and Lior are actually stating potential lines of logic. I may or may not understand them, but it’s not just “well, if it were meant to be, we’d’ve been doing it already, so there MUST have been a good reason back then,” which is what your logic sounds like (though I apologize if i’m misunderstanding).
GAW: Is being in Knesset, even without following daas Torah, really serara? Technically, it’s one (wo)man, one vote.December 11, 2014 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm #1049719Sam2Participant
Lior: Not every MK is in the public shpere. Presumably a Tzanua Chareidi woman who is an MK would avoid being on television and magazines and such as much as possible.
MDG: Pashtus should be there is no issue of S’rara by a democratically elected official. People are allowed to accept a woman (binding arbitration) themselves. Now, we can debate about the majority forcing the woman on the minority, but that’s separate.December 11, 2014 7:36 pm at 7:36 pm #1049720
I’m not avoiding your point, the issue to me is tznius (probably not technically serarah, I’m with Sam on that).
I think you are clouding the issue with a meaningless comparison to burkas.December 12, 2014 2:30 am at 2:30 am #1049722
Sam: Public officials get public exposure. Some more, some less, but all far more than a private citizen. A woman needs to minimize her public exposure as much as attainable and she needn’t be a legislator. There are enough men to do it that there’s no need for a woman to put herself in the limelight, however much more it will be than if she remains a private citizen.December 12, 2014 3:00 am at 3:00 am #1049723
This whole discussion is based on a mistake. Legislators don’t work for themselves–they work for us!
Being a legislator isn’t about fair–its about people thinking you’ll do a good job at it.
You don’t have a right to be a legislator, because nobody has such a right, because the position is not created for the good of the legislator. Its created for the good of the people.
So this whole idea of “it isn’t fair that we can’t be legislators” is all wrong. It isn’t supposed to be fair. The point isn’t for you. Nobody cares who wants to be a legislator. We only care, and only should care, about who WE want to be legislators.December 12, 2014 3:26 am at 3:26 am #1049724
Popa, how would that be different than if a minority group would be excluded from serving the Senate or House of Representatives (which I assume you would oppose)?
I suppose you could say that in that case, we, the people, would have a more limited choice, but wouldn’t you also oppose the discrimination aspect?December 12, 2014 3:48 am at 3:48 am #1049725
DY: Firstly, that isn’t at all comparable because that would be the government making a rule.
But more importantly, yes, I still say the same thing. What’s it to you to complain that you can’t be in the senate? What right do you have to be in the Senate to begin with?December 12, 2014 4:08 am at 4:08 am #1049726
Why is the government’s discrimination better? And no, I don’t have the right to be in the Senate, but I probably should have the right to run for it, assuming everything equal aside from my race/ethnicity/religion etc., and certainly, the government, or even a political party, shouldn’t have the right to discriminate for that.
I have no issue with the chareidi parties not running female candidates; in fact, I think it’s correct. I just don’t like your argument.December 12, 2014 4:22 am at 4:22 am #1049727
Why should you have a right to run for Senate? What does Senate have to do with you?
You have a right to basic liberties that are essential. Like living, breathing, free speech, etc. But those things are for you.
It’s like if you’d say you want to have a right to be hired by me. I don’t hire people to help them–I do it to help me. How could you possibly have a claim?December 12, 2014 4:30 am at 4:30 am #1049728
1) So you’d be okay with a company refusing to hire you simply because you’re Jewish?
2) Odu li mihas to my second point above, that even if YOU don’t have the right to the job or even an interview, THEY don’t have the right to discriminate.December 12, 2014 6:30 am at 6:30 am #1049729Sam2Participant
Lior: And what if she’s better than all of the men?December 12, 2014 11:04 am at 11:04 am #1049730
DY: Forget the burqas (I did later make a much more fair comparison, to women working). My point was simply, from the beginning, that there are a million and one things that could be assered for women based on tznius and kvod bas melech pnima, so why are some things okay and others not. Other posters have stated possible, plausible reasons- you evaded it. That was all. You don’t have to state a real dividing line if you don’t want, just don’t make it sound like I’m being so open-minded my brains have fallen out.December 12, 2014 11:58 am at 11:58 am #1049731
WS, I’m not trying to evade anything. There’s obviously a balance between need, and level of compromise in tznius. We have already compromised a great deal in kol k’vuda bas melech, and concurrently, in the mother’s availability to her children, but only because it’s needed. Meiheicha teisi to take it further for no reason? But you knew that.
It’s interesting that you use the term open-minded. I think we’re past that. Open-minded is supposed to mean that one is open to new ideas, but equality is no longer a new idea, it’s for the most part accepted as the norm in Western culture.
The idea that someone can respect women (as I think I, for example do), yet think there is a legitimate concern and reason to discriminate for certain things, is something which maybe you need to open your mind to.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.