Volume 53 Number 70
Produced: Wed Jan 10 5:38:32 EST 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Accuracy - Buses
[Leah S. Gordon]
Bigotry and Halacha
[Meir Shinnar]
The Bus Situation
[R E Sternglantz]
Public Transit
[Samuel Groner]
Rabbis assisting women
[SBA]
Segregated Buses (3)
[Frank Silbermann, Meir Shinnar, Risa Tzohar]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 06:50:30 -0800
Subject: Accuracy - Buses
>Meir Shinnar wrote:
>> If one would survey Israelis, I am sure that one would find a sizable
>> section of the bus riders who do not want to sit next to haredim.
>> Would you say the same thing about egged providing a similar provision
>> (haredim to the back of the bus) to make provision for its customers?
>> The problem is that the essential bigotry of the situation is not
>> recognized.
>
>I am not sure how this reads to others, but to me it seems to be
>describing chareidim who do not wanted to be jammed between persons of
>the opposite gender as bigots.
>
>I would take exception to such a description on grounds of common
>decency and morality, something quite lacking in public in Western
>society. Any time I need to travel on public transport in England this
>is quite evident.
>
>I take particular exception though that such a view might be propounded
>on a list which is supposed to reflect halachic norms. I have yet to be
>persuaded that any rov would seek to find a heter for men and women to
>be jammed together in the way that happens frequently on public
>transport.
>
>Bigotry?
>
>Perets Mett
I have to defend Mr. Shinnar here. Mr. Mett has re-formulated the bus
business now into simply an objection to being "jammed" between those of
the other sex. I thought Mr. Mett was saying just in the last digest
that women should take it upon themselves not even to sit in a row upon
which a man's gaze might fall.
It is a very unfair straw-"man" method to set up the discussion in this
way. And by the way, I think that Mr. Shinnar's points are both
excellent:
1. It is certainly bigotry to force people to the back-of-the-bus by
reason of their sex. The best you could say is that it is
halakhically-mandated-bigotry, but I don't think that even that is
supportable by real halakha.
2. People's objections to sitting next to bigoted people are at least as
legitimate as any other objections from an Egged-marketing perspective.
Let me also add to "SBA" who attempted to defend the back-of-the-bus:
3. The idea that women would have to be in the back instead of on the
side or in the front is not well-supported. As I mentioned earlier, it
is not an onus on the women to "not be seen". And, the location at the
back is surely an insulting one to anyone who pays attention either to
the historical context or to the reality of payment or asking the driver
for help or feeling carsick.
I, for one, am not willing to accept a second-class seat so that someone
won't have to look at me (!!). Would "SBA" be willing to do so?
Any man who can't handle even being in a row behind rows containing
women really has no place on public transportation (let alone telling
others where to sit on such transportation). He needs to seek
counseling for his wild sexual thoughts. No bus company or right-wing
rabbi will convince me otherwise.
--Leah Sarah Reingold Gordon
p.s. To my good friend Ari Trachtenberg regarding unisex bathrooms -
there are in fact provisions made at many airports, amusement parks,
etc. for family/friends assisting those of the opposite sex. They are
single-room bathrooms with signage indicating their purpose. I often
use them with my young sons. I also think that bathrooms with stalls
don't really need to be single-sex, but that is another conversation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:46:04 -0500
Subject: Bigotry and Halacha
>If one would survey Israelis, I am sure that one would find a sizable
>section of the bus riders who do not want to sit next to haredim. Would
>you say the same thing about egged providing a similar provision
>(haredim to the back of the bus) to make provision for its customers?
SBA
>I think that this is indeed your problem. What our rabbonim call
>halacha - you call bigotry.
So far, no one has cited a single, main stream posek of stature
(actually, no one has cited any posek at all...) who has said that
segregated buses are required - and we know that many rabbanim of the
charedi coimmunity used mixed buses without a problem, and did not
require segregation. As there isn't a halachic requirement, one is left
with other issues, such as kavod habriyot...
Therefore, yes, this is bigotry,not halacha - (actually, one could make
a good case for the halachic requirement on the other side), and
transforming bigotry into halacha has issues besides bigotry (hillul
hashem, ziyuf hatora, just to start...)
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R E Sternglantz <resternglantz@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 07:36:10 -0500
Subject: The Bus Situation
Let me start by saying that I've never regarded the notion of separation
of the genders (in any Orthodox Jewish context) as bigotry or sexism or
parallel to illegal segregation of the races. And I recognize that
Israel is not NY and that different cultural standards apply. And I have
ridden Egged and been squashed among men and been very unhappy about
that fact, and so I can appreciate that the gender separation bus
project is in fact designed to fix a *real* problem (avoiding inevitable
full body contact between men and women) and not merely to serve the
interests of men who don't want to ever see a woman.
However, I find it disturbing that several posters (on both sides of the
aisle, so to speak) cannot separate analysis/discussion of the terrible
thing that happened to a woman *who got on a non-Mehadrin bus* from the
very existence of a gender-segregated transportation option.
You can defend the concept of the Mehadrin bus and even argue that all
bus lines should have at least some Mehadrin buses running without
defending the behavior towards that particular woman.
And you can condemn what happened to that woman, and discuss the very
real problem of lack of respect in our communities towards women, while
respecting stringent observance of halacha and a desire by some to avoid
situations where full body contact with members of the opposite sex is
inevitable.
And you can defend the Mehadrin bus concept and still argue that there
really is no good reason for men to be in the front, SBA's argument
notwithstanding.
Also, within the Mehadrin bus conversation, we really ought to separate
between the halachic status/ground for men who never want to catch a
glimpse of a woman (which SBA puts forward as the obvious reason why men
are in the front and women in the back - unless Mehadrin buses are
specially constructed with all the seats facing forward, those in the
front and the back are in precisely the same situation, and if you don't
want to see those in the other section, you can just NOT LOOK), and the
halachic status/ground for men (and women) who do not want to enter a
situation where they will inevitably be placed in full body contact with
the opposite sex. It seems to me that these are not the same.
We should be able to have a serious discussion of problems in our
communities without having everything devolve into reductio ad absurdum
or attacks on segments of the community as a whole.
Ruth Sternglantz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Samuel Groner <samgroner@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:29:59 -0500
Subject: Public Transit
Perets Mett wrote "I have yet to be persuaded that any rov would seek to
find a heter for men and women to be jammed together in the way that
happens frequently on public transport."
See Igros Moshe, Even Ha-Ezer, 2:14, where Rav Moshe allows men to ride
crowded subways in New York City despite the inevitability of bumping
into women.
Sammy Groner
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 03:32:38 +1100
Subject: Rabbis assisting women
Freda Birnbaum writes:
> what about the situation where someone is assisting a spouse or an
> elderly or less-than-fully-abled person of the other gender? Does the
> wife have to sit in the back while the elderly husband with the walker
> sits elsewhere?
Of course not. And it is not expected. I actually asked 2 young israeli
chassidim - who now live here, if in their time they gave their bus
seats up for pregnant or older women?
They thought I was nuts. Of course they did and as far as they knew so
too do their friends. (After all, they also have periodically pregnant
wives/mothers and old grandmothers...)
From: Andy Goldfinger
> I attended a levaya in Baltimore. Officiating was a well known Rabbi
> who is Haredi (Chassidish .. a relative came to the podium to
> speak. ..a woman with some sort of medical problem (cerebral palsy?)
> that made it very difficult for her to walk. As she approached the
> stairs, it was apparent it would be very difficult for her to climb
> them. This Rabbi, without hesitation and in full view of the
> attendees, went over to her, took her arm and assisted her as she went
> up the stairs. When she finished, he helped her down the stairs.
Just tonight I saw a teshuva in Shu'T Be'er Moshe (by famous Posek Rav
Moshe Stern zt'l - Debreciner Rav of BP). In it he writes that walking
along the street once he saw - across the road - a colleague of his -
another Rav, lifting a women who had slipped (IIRC on ice).
This rav noticing him (RMS), then came over and 'explained' his
behaviour, saying that if she was Jewish - he had a chiyuv to help her
get up, and if she was not, and he had walked by her, it would have
been a Chilul Hashem. Of course RMS completely agreed with him.
(And for those who may not know, Rabbonim do not come any "Chareidier"
than RMS...)
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 07:25:18 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Segregated Buses
>> this still doesn't answer the question, why aren't the men in the
>> back?
David I. Cohen V53 N68:
> Actually it has been answered quite a few times. Men at the back can
> still see the ladies, unlike when they are seated in the front.
How about we prevent haredi men and women from seeing each other by
putting the haredi women in front, the haredi men in back, and have the
rear seats facing backwards?
(Since the separate seating is for the men's benefit, the men should be
willing to take the less desirable rear half.)
That would also be an obvious way of knowing which buses were part of
the Mehadrin line. If all seats face front, sit where you please.
Frank Silbermann Memphis, Tennessee <fs@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:14:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Segregated Buses
>I am not sure how this reads to others, but to me it seems to be
>describing chareidim who do not wanted to be jammed between persons of
>the opposite gender as bigots.
>I would take exception to such a description on grounds of common
>decency and morality, something quite lacking in public in Western
>society. Any time I need to travel on public transport in England this
>is quite evident.
>I take particular exception though that such a view might be propounded
>on a list which is supposed to reflect halachic norms. I have yet to be
>persuaded that any rov would seek to find a heter for men and women to
>be jammed together in the way that happens frequently on public
>transport.
>Bigotry?
The post is interesting for a number of issues. First, the blanket
accusation of lack decency and morality in Western society - while
issues of modesty may be appropriate, the accusation of lack morality is
far more problematic - and actually explicitly rejected by many poskim (
the notion of malchut shel chesed....),.
Second,while the author has yet to be persuaded, we know that R
Feinstein had explicit heters for the NY subway - far more crowded than
Jerusalem buses. We also know that until quite recently, the major
leaders of Israeli haredi society had no usch problem - and indeed used
the buses themselves. This suggests that the problem is not the halachic
issue - but the transforming of social norms into halachic norms. As
many of us perceive the social norms as bigotry, one is transforming
bigotry into a halachic norm - which is a tremendous halachic problem.
Furthermore, the problem is not the crowding and jamming of people of
the opposite sex - one could require that each bench be same sex,
determined by first occupant, or get up if one feels too close. I don't
think that any objective observer can characterize the current system of
segregation as anything other than bigotry - and endowing it with a
halachic halo is something that requires the halachic community to
denounce it.
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Risa Tzohar <risa.tzohar@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:48:51 +0200
Subject: Segregated Buses
SBA wrote the following:
> I think that this is indeed your problem. What our rabbonim call
> halacha - you call bigotry."
and
> Actually it has been answered quite a few times. Men at the back can
> still see the ladies, unlike when they are seated in the front. I
> didn't think that was so hard to work out..
The halacha says that men aren't allowed to "see the ladies"? Always?
Only on busses? On dry land? Out-of-doors? Indoors? In their own homes?
In other's homes?
If this is the halacha, how far do we have to go when trying to live up
to "l'fnei iver lo tasim michshol" (not putting an obtacle in front of a
blind person). Maybe the blind person has to think about where not to
walk.
Risa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 53 Issue 70
