Monday, August 21, 2023

Rav Menashe Klein: Does sending girls to collect charity violate "the honor of the princess is to stay inside"

Rav Menashe Klein (4:125):Woe is to the girls school that sent them to collect money for charity Question: You want to know my view as to whether it is correct to send school girls from the higher grade with collection boxes (pushkes) into the stores and streets to collect money for Torah study or other worthy causes. Your view is that this practice violates the principle that the “The honor of the princess is inside” and also there is inappropriate contact with the people who pass by and this causes at times disgusting things. And I want to raise the additional question, “Why should this only be a concern for the higher grades? The question is definitely relevent also for the lower grades. Why should it be different because in both cases the girls are getting used to being amongst men? And the father of Shmuel did not let two sisters to sleep together to prevent them getting used to being physically close to another person. Everything depends on habit as is well known in this matter.

Nonetheless it is difficult to state a clear cut rule because it strongly depends upon the place and the time and the person. There is no question in a case where the girls who normally are in fact in the house the whole day that we say “The honor of the princess is inside”. But that is an unusual case. In such a case there would be no mitzva to send them out to collect charity and in fact it would be a mitzva accomplished through sin. However due to our many sins it seems that these present day girls do not in fact fulfill the verse of “The honor of the princess is inside” and they leave the home regularly for all sorts of things. For example they go to school everyday on the bus with various and strange drivers and joke with them or discuss issues with them or even with an ordinary non-Jew that gets on the bus and they greet them – and this is a problem even with a Jewish driver. They learn English in school with male teachers who might be non-Jews or Jews. And this is true not only for English but also they have male teachers for Torah - and many of the teachers are unmarried.

It was a long time ago that I spoke with one of the principals of a girls high school here concerning why they have unmarried male teachers? We know from Toras Moshe Rabbeinu that an unmarried male should not teach – even boys because of the mothers who come for them. So surely they shouldn’t be teaching older girls who are at the age to cause problems even for married teachers. Surely males teaching girls is not considered a clean and simple profession. In fact our Sages have said that a person should have a job that doesn’t involve interacting with females and surely not to be teaching them every day for the entire day! Can it be that a person will light a fire in his bosom and not be burnt? Who in today’s generation can say that he doesn’t have sexual enticements in these situations?

G-d forbid that I should be blaming holy Jewish girls and I am not not saying they are doing anything wrong because all of them are holy. And also it is certain that the teachers are pure and holy and I with my many sins and am the lowest of the lowest I have not merited to holiness like this. However for someone of lowly value such as myself it is certain that I need to protest. And perhaps in truth you will not find amongst the teachers someone as lowly as me – it should only be so.

The holy and learned Rav Hillel Kalamair occasionally gave talks to women concerning mussar and the halachos that they needed to know. When he entered into they synagogue to speak before them, he would first wrap his head with a talis so he would not look at them and come to sin. Are we greater than he? And I have said that if perhaps I had two other rabbis supporting me I would make a great protest against this practise. [see E. H. 1:3 and Beis Shmeul 1:4. My brother pointed out to me that the Lechem Chamudos said something similar. I am happy to see that I am agreement with such an elevated person.]

So to return to the original question. We see that these girls go into the markets and streets for walks, for jobs, for purchases and for all their needs. If so why should we be concerned specifically for the issue of going to collect charity? Is this worse than what they do for other needs? In fact the opposite is so because there are times when it is good for them to go and collect charity and not go to worse places than that e.g., to watch television or listen to the radio or sometimes they even go to see a movie or other entertainment which I don’t want to mention. So I am not speaking about the girls who in truth do not generally go out and they fulfill, “The honor of the princess is inside” and they are adorned with golden garments. A girl who spends her staying at home and not going out – they should be truly rich and their portion be successful and their forfathers rejoice – because this is true greatness for girls like these not to go out. For such girls the question of collecting charity does not arise.

Rav Menashe Klein (9:250): Question: Concerning the halacha principle that a Jewish woman is considered a princess and therefore it is more respectful for that status that she should remain in the home (kavod bas melech penima) – is it preferable that a wife leave the home for the sake of her husband to a place of immorality [in order to earn a living or other purposes]. Answer: It is difficult to give a clear written response to this question. That is because in modern time this principle that it is best that a Jewish woman should stay in the home is almost nonexistent – because of our many sins. If a woman does remain in her home and doesn’t go out for any reason– even if it causes her husband to lose Torah study - then this is definitely an example of the principle. Traditionally a woman did not go out of her house. However after the Holocaust (because of our many sins) – when we find ourselves a small minority amongst the nations of the world and earning a livelihood is difficult – it has become normative practice for women to leave their homes. However in places outside the home there is the possibility of immorality and no protection against sexual sins – therefore it depends on the nature of the society and the characteristics of the woman. In particular whether she would in fact remain in the house all day if she had the opportunity. (See what I wrote in Mishne Torah 4:125) concerning sending Beis Yaakov girls out to collect money for charity.)

 First we need to clarify whether we actually rule that this principle is the halacha. It seems that in fact that it is a dispute amongst the poskim - as we see from Gittin 12 that apparently we don’t follow such a principle. Similarly Mahari Bruno (#242) was asked regarding a maid servant who did not want to leave the home to do the shopping because of this principle. He responded that we don’t rule in accord with this principle. In contrast we see in Yevamos (77a) that this principle is cited as halacha [from the fact that Amonite and Moabite women were not punished for failing to provide the Jews with bread and water - since all respectable woman remain in the home] .

he Nimukei Yosef say there that the principle is halacha because all Jews are considered royalty. Shulchan Aruch (E.H 4) also rules like Yevamos (77a). See the Levush. Consequently we seem to have contradictory evidence as to whether it is halacha. Furthermore in Shabbos (111a), Rav Shimon says that all Jews are royalty and that is the halacha. On the other hand the Ran says that the Rif says that the halacha that all Jews are not considered royalty. However the BeHag and Rabbeinu Chananel rule like Rav Shimon...Rashi (Shabbos 59) writes that all Jews are royalty. Similarly in Mishna Berachos (1:2) says that they are royalty. However Rabbeinu Yona says normally they are not considered royalty but here we do.

In my chidushim I write that there are three different circumstances. In truth there is no question that the honor of a princess is to stay in the home. However in spite of that, we find with Ruth that she did go out to gather grain amongst the other harvesters – and she is praised for doing so. But look at Rashi and the interpretations of Chazal that say when she went out she sought out the company of proper people. If so we can state that when a person does need to go out of the home this principle requires finding a place where there are proper people. In such circumstances there is no prohibition.

62 comments:

  1. Yasher Koach for sharing this godol hador's psak halacha on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What is "proper people" in an age we see rabbonim and other proper people involved in inappropriate behavior?

    ReplyDelete
  3. " For example they go to school everyday on the bus with various and strange drivers and joke with them or discuss issues with them or even with an ordinary non-Jew that gets on the bus and they greet them – and this is a problem even with a Jewish driver. "

    asking this seriously, not to troll: how does a woman trying to live a chareidi lifestyle according to some of the piskei halacha posted here recently travel on a daily basis? she can't drive (according to one posek) and buses (as shown above) are problematic. what is she supposed to do? just stay home, not work, not take care of the kids and all that entails (especially if you live in the US). her husband should drive her (and the family) to where ever they need to get to? is that practical?

    ReplyDelete
  4. What's this got to do with chareidi, unless Shulchan Aruch and Rambam are both somehow only applicable to chareidim. Both Shulchan Aruch and Rambam pasken l'halacha that women should not go out of the house much, and their husbands shouldn't let them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems to me she should do as the men do when a Yichud situation arises: bring along a friend or two. Coordinate shopping trips with friends, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  6. like i said before, the non- chareidi world doesn't listen to rabbis like rav wosner and rav klein.

    ReplyDelete
  7. and who drives? rav wosner said that she shouldn't drive.

    ReplyDelete
  8. i'll revise my last comment:

    i am talking about real life, where not just secular, MO, DL, and Chardal women leave the house almost daily, but Chareidi women also. I have no idea what people do in the US but here, in EY, women, including many, many Chareidi women, work. I believe the majority of chareidi women work. They're expected to.

    So, what are they supposed to?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The problem as I see it, is that silly rules are made which water down the credibility of the real rules. It would be nice if we would have The Torah and The Torah only as our guide.

    Women may drive.
    Women may not engage in idle conversation with men, be it the bus driver or the sem teacher.
    More so, men may not engage in idle conversation with women, be it at work or school or anywhere. This is clear in Shu'A. The seems with male teachers is an abomination. I think we have heard enough to substantiate that.
    Yichud is categorically asur. A car service with a male driver is a difficult heter and is a big bedieved, so it's certainly better for her to drive.

    This problem is present in many aspects of our lives, not just this issue about women, and it's ruining everything.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Can't drive. Can't get more than a basic education. Can't leave the house unless it's really, really important. Can't speak to men or non-Jews.
    But expected to raise the children, keep the house supplied and running, earn a living to pay the bills...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gadol Hador? Maybe and maybe not. Why do you find it necessary to say that?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The "real rules" according to the Rambam, is that a wife should not leave home more than once or twice a month, and says Rambam that her husband should prevent her from going out more than that.

    So what are your saying? That Rav Klein watered down the full extent of the Torah law on this matter, as explained by the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch?

    ReplyDelete
  13. The schools have to be allowed to hire single men as teachers, otherwise the schools would have to close down.

    How many people on this site have tried recruiting teachers for Jewish schools? It is nobody's first choice of career. The schools are so desperate for teachers that they take any "nebuch" who can't find a job.

    I know, because they hired me knowing I had no experience and proceeded to give me classes of teenagers in the most crucial years of study. I did a terrible job, but the other teachers were even worse, because at least I worked as hard as I could. Every teacher in my school and that I have ever met is only doing the job because they have been unemployed for a long time and can find nothing else. But it was a miserable and horrible job - being abused every day by the pupils, overloaded with work, marking and lesson preparations, working over-time to run detention and parents' evenings. I quit after 6 months when the job market improved and I could get back in to the financial industry - never looked back!

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Rambam is clearly referring to going out for no purpose, just to get out in the streets. But he says clearly that women aren't in jail, and they should go to visit her parents and to friends and relatives and to shiva calls and simchas and to do chesed to their friends by paying them visits in order to make that the friend should reciprocate and come to her. And when The Rambam said once or twice a month he followed by adding as needed, so leaves room for applying things as needed. If a man would force his wife in our times not to leave the house, more than once or twice a month, he would be violating what The Rambam says that she is not to be imprisoned like a prisoner in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  15. we truly live in an age of miracles

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Rambam clearly says that the one or two times a month they can go out is for the purposes of visiting her parents, shiva, etc. He says she isn't in jail and that's why her husband should let her go out once or twice a month. He doesn't say she can go out once or twice for fun or other purposes on top of visiting parents, etc. He says that the once or twice IS for that purpose. And that she's not in jail meaning her husband shouldn't permit her from going out even that once or twice.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The male bus driver. The male automobile driver. There doesn't have to be much interaction between passengers and driver. Just give directions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Harry, the Rambam does not sound at all like what you are saying. When he says that she may leave once or twice a month, it is only for visiting parents and the like (i.e. once a twice a month and even then only for a purpose).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Because it suits his agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How depressing to hear about the situation of jewish schools and teachers where you live. Sad to hear that there seem to be not teachers who take pride in their profession.

    ReplyDelete
  21. No good according to Rav Klein.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think Rav Klein was speaking of public buses. I meant a private bus system. However, he does seem to indicate that women should not go out to make "purchases". I have to admit, this seems to imply that a woman ideally shouldn't go to the butcher shop or fresh produce market.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What if there are 3 shiva calls in a given month? So we must learn The Rambam with a correct approach to understand that there is no stira. So The Rambam does 2 things here, he gives the parameters, and he gives practical specific direction within those parameters. So what do you do if a particalar instance following the parameters doesn't fit the specifics? What do we follow? So since obviously that is an eventuality, and The Rambam surely forsaw, that such can occur and will occur at times, we must use our lomdishe (aka logical for true lomdim) sense to realize that his specifics were an application of his parameters within a particular framework and situation but not all situations and times and places. The parameters are stated, 1 - she is not in jail, 2 - it is shameful for a woman to go out 'always' at times 'outside' and at times 'in the streets', 3 - As needed. Maybe to apply this today in some of our societies, it might be correct for a husband not to allow his wife to be off with friends to Florida etc., and I, in trying to be a good student of The Rambam, don't mean this in a absolute way either.

    To me this is obvious. I am not a Gadol, but just a simple man using his senses. Maybe to those who can't understand The Rambam with the simple logic I applied here, I am starting to understand why you are always in need of gedoilim. But truthfully, you don't need gedoilim for this, just simple people with simple common sense. I beg you to open your mind, if can still access it, meaning if you haven't forfeited it entirely, beyond retrieval. Pardon my sharpness, but I don't have the fine middos of a gadol, because I am not more than the most simple of men, with all of the imperfect middos.

    ReplyDelete
  24. See my response to Shmuel, which I put in the wrong place by mistake, as I intended it for you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I meant the latter part of my response for Moe Ginsburg.

    ReplyDelete
  26. As long as we agree there are limitations on women being in the streets/in public. And we agree that it should be limited to situations where it is necessary. And that women shouldn't stam be in public without good reason, then I don't think we disagree on the halacha as described in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I responded there.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Not sure if you know this, but the Rambam lived in Muslim countries, where that was the norm for all women. In such a context, the Jewish women hanging out in the marketplace would be a breach of modesty.

    ReplyDelete
  29. strange agenda, by the way. Why would anyone, especially men, want to live in a society where women are treated like children or prisoners, where husbands have to do every little thing for their wives, because they are forbidden to do it by themselves?

    I suppose that "Moe" is either a troll trying to disparage orthodox judaism or a person with severe deficits that do not allow him to accept a wife as an equal partner.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I first want to establish that that is the ideal presented by the classic sources.

    Once that is established the question is what is the mechanism for doing something other than the ideal. Is it simply accepting the pragmatic reality than you can't have a viable society or there in fact values which allow l'chatchila for an alternative framework?

    ReplyDelete
  31. The holy Rambam paskened halacha without regard to Muslims. And Jews didn't base their modesty laws on the norms of the local gentiles. Otherwise I suppose you similarly assume Jews in Christian countries base their modesty practices on how Christian women act.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You're mistakenly assuming "equal partners" is ideal or attainable. It is neither. Nor is it the either the historic norm of marriages nor, certainly, the Torah prescribed description of marriage. As is very clear from the Torah sources.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think that if it is presented as ideal and if you think it is important to follow those sources, you should go by the ideal. In my view, there is no way around it.

    As I told you, as opposed to you, I do not believe that halacha is static. I know it is influenced by time and surrounding culture, and this is a good enough explanation for me: I will not adhere by standards I deem immoral (like daughters being barred from inheriting along with their brothers, etc.), even if they are recommended by classical sources.

    ReplyDelete
  34. are you claiming there is no concern for what goyim think? Satmar's objection to Rav Moshe' psak regarding artificial insemination was based in part that "even the Catholic Bishop says it is wrong. The Rosh has a psak about blasphemy that takes into account the Christian attitude towards the offense.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think there is a confusion between halacha and halacha l'maaseh

    ReplyDelete
  36. Rav Moshe rejected the criticism based on what the goyim think

    ReplyDelete
  37. I would definitely assume that the practices of the non-Jewish women in the society in which one lives form the baseline for what is considered modest in that locale. For example, if one lives among the Amish, it would be immodest to leave the calves and forearms uncovered. I am not aware of anyone who would disagree with this. Minhag hamakom is a very significant factor in modesty. Saying that the Rambam wrote what he did without taking into consideration the local practice is A: not provable, and B: odd.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yes we agree on that. But I am relatively liberal in defining 'good reason'. I consider overall happiness and well being, even in connection with expectations caused by social culture, to legitimately be part of the equation.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Of course it is attainable to be equal partners in marriage. There are millions of couples out there who could show you how it works.
    I wonder why you think it is not attainable for you...

    Of course, there are also the "bondage" type of couples, where either the man or the woman play "submitted". But I suppose that it is rather a minority mode, and I think that that in those "inequal" couples, the happily submitted males are about as numerous as the happily submitted females...

    ReplyDelete
  40. It should also be noted that the pesakim of R' Menashe Klein relating to certain issues are disregarded because of his unusual family circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Do you hold like Satmar or like Rav Moshe?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Both of your opposite extremes, bondage and equality, are in contradiction to how the Torah HaKedosha and Halacha direct us Jews to conduct our marriages.

    I follow the Torah and Halacha. They both tell us that a wife accepts her husband's decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I would definitely NOT assume that the modesty of Jewish women is based (in part or in whole) on the values of the local shiksas. Minhag Hamokem is based exclusively on the minhag of the JEWS in that makom, without respect to the gentiles in that makom. Jews and gentiles in the same town have VASTLY different values and ideas and practices regarding modesty.

    I surely hope you don't use American gentile women as a guide, in any way, on how a Bas Yisroel living in America should conduct herself in a modest manner.

    ReplyDelete
  44. that is irrelevant to the original question. There are in fact times where the surrounding culture influences psak

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rav Moshe, in the example cited, said not.

    ReplyDelete
  46. You are missing the point (yet again). The issue is establishing a minimum baseline for what is considered modest. If one is living in a place where in the general populace, the women do not leave the house, it would exhibit a lack of modesty for the Jewish women to be gallivanting about town.

    ReplyDelete
  47. What is your marital situation, if I may ask? How does your wife handle this?

    ReplyDelete
  48. you made a categorical statement. the statement is not true. The fact that Rav Moshe might disagree with its application doesn't mean that in the teshuva literature that you will not find examples of how the nature of the surrounding culture didn't influence the psak.

    ReplyDelete
  49. She's very happy to live a Torah life in a Torah marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The baseline isn't based on shiksas and other gentiles. It's based on the local Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  51. that is the question. But you have presented no evidence that Jews can ignore the standards of goyim even when they are more machmir.

    ReplyDelete
  52. So she does not live your house/flat more than twice a month?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Why would you think it makes any difference if the shiksas are more machmir or less machmir? If the shiksas, as they do in America, go in the street in miniskirts and tank tops, you could just as well argue that must be the "Minhag Hamokem".

    ReplyDelete
  54. I hope you are not serious. If you live in a world where women cover their face and that is perceived as the right thing to do. For Jews to dress less modestly is a problem. Obviously I am not saying that we should violate Torah standards to be like contemporary society. But to live for example in an Arab country and to have Jewish women dress like prostitutes can not be acceptable.

    See the Rosh's teshuva about dealing with a blasphemer

    ReplyDelete
  55. Are you aware that the term "shiksa" is offensive and derogatory?

    ReplyDelete
  56. The teshuva from Spain where he permitted their practice to continue executing blasphemers that they started before he became Rov there? He said he was reluctant to permit that to continue but that the non-Jewish government essentially forced them to because the government would have executed Jewish blasphemers themselves (and more easily/frequently at that) if the beis din wasn't itself enforcing it with a death penalty.

    I'm not sure how that, where the government essentially tied their hands, fits into here.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Thank you for standing up in defense of the honor of gentile women everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  58. You're welcome. My mishna says חביב אדם שנברא בצלם, and referring to a human being by that term is an offense to both the person and the One Who created her.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I think the controlling passages are:

    "The assembly of judges also judges in order to save lives since greater amounts of blood would have been spilled if they were tried by the Gentiles.I permitted them to continue with their practice. However I never agreed with them on any loss of life."

    ReplyDelete
  60. This is an interesting example indeed, where the rosh recommends a punishment that was never postulated anywhere (cutting off tongue and lips), because it was costummary in the surrounding society.

    There are also examples of Rabbonim in muslim spain, where cutting off hands was practiced on thieves, because it was the custom in muslim society.

    Which shows you that those adaptations are not always in the sense of heterim, just as the prohibition of polygamy is not a heter, nor the restriction of divorce, nor the abolishing of slavery...

    It also shows that orthodox judaism adapts to surrounding society, albeit slowly.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The Jews of Spain executed people with the permission of the Spanish government. This save lives because if there was no Jewish court ruling on those cases they would by default be tried by a Spanish court that would execute more people than the Jewish court. The Rosh never agreed to them executing people.

    In this case the Jews court - with the power of capital punishment given to them by the Spanish goverment - felt that they needed to execute a blasphemer and to not do it would be a chilul hashem because that what the goyim do to blasphermers.

    Clearly by not following the moral standards of the goyim it would be a chilul hashem. This is the argument of the Satmar Rebbe that Reb Moshe rejected.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.