debka_notion (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
debka_notion) wrote2004-10-09 05:52 pm
debka_notion) wrote2004-10-09 05:52 pm
Tzaddikim and Jewish Mothers
I was talking to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
zodiacmg last night, and we had a conversation that started out with the thought that tzaddikim (truly righteous people) were like the stereotypical Jewish mother- sacrificing themselves for the sake of other people/G-d the way mothers (really, any mothers, I'd think) sacrifice for their children, especially in critical situations. This was prompted by a story Raphi told before services about a man whose wife was sick, and he went and prayed to G-d, and G-d sent him the money he needed for a doctor by having him find the money on the ground. But as he's going to the doctor's house, he hears crying from the house of a widow, and finds out that she'd lost exactly that amount of money somehow- so he gives her the money, and can't get a doctor for his wife. It turns out that his wife recovers without the doctor, but he had no way of doing anything to help her, because he "returned" the money- and everyone in town celebrates him because he's so clearly a righteous person.
What came out though was that huge numbers of these stories about tzaddikim include a wife and children- and the tzaddikim are always terribly poor. And so often they get some money and use it for something religious or give it to charity, leaving their family, for whom they are responsible, still starving. I don't see how that's so righteous at all. Sure, charity is important, and it's a beautiful thing to give something up so that somneone else can have it, or for the sake of G-d. But when you're responsible for other people who are depending on you- sacrifice as much of your Own stuff as you want, but you can't sacrifice what they need to survive and call that righteousness: I call that irresponsibility. I'd like to hear stories about people who do pious and charitable and incredible things without sacrificing the needs of other people more often. A person who does something above and beyond the requirements for G-d and lets the people for whom he/she is responsible suffer is not being righteous.
The other thing I noticed in the course of conversation was that, of course, all the tzaddikim are male. There are stories about righteous gentiles (although they're rarely, if ever, called tzadikkim: it seems to be a word that only applies inside the religion, which I'm not sure what I think of yet), but there are no stories taht I've heard in which a woman is termed a tzaddiket (if that's the proper feminine form- I suppose it might be tzaddikah. If someone knows, let me know, please. But well, the fact that I don't even know the proper word tells you exactly how much I haven't heard it used.) Righteous women don't get stories told about their acts of charity in the same way. And if they used the money that could have fed their families to buy a beautiful ritual object, as the plots of several of the stories I've heard about tzaddikim have involved, I'm pretty sure that they'd be properly criticized. So why is it an act of piety from a man?
zodiacmg last night, and we had a conversation that started out with the thought that tzaddikim (truly righteous people) were like the stereotypical Jewish mother- sacrificing themselves for the sake of other people/G-d the way mothers (really, any mothers, I'd think) sacrifice for their children, especially in critical situations. This was prompted by a story Raphi told before services about a man whose wife was sick, and he went and prayed to G-d, and G-d sent him the money he needed for a doctor by having him find the money on the ground. But as he's going to the doctor's house, he hears crying from the house of a widow, and finds out that she'd lost exactly that amount of money somehow- so he gives her the money, and can't get a doctor for his wife. It turns out that his wife recovers without the doctor, but he had no way of doing anything to help her, because he "returned" the money- and everyone in town celebrates him because he's so clearly a righteous person. What came out though was that huge numbers of these stories about tzaddikim include a wife and children- and the tzaddikim are always terribly poor. And so often they get some money and use it for something religious or give it to charity, leaving their family, for whom they are responsible, still starving. I don't see how that's so righteous at all. Sure, charity is important, and it's a beautiful thing to give something up so that somneone else can have it, or for the sake of G-d. But when you're responsible for other people who are depending on you- sacrifice as much of your Own stuff as you want, but you can't sacrifice what they need to survive and call that righteousness: I call that irresponsibility. I'd like to hear stories about people who do pious and charitable and incredible things without sacrificing the needs of other people more often. A person who does something above and beyond the requirements for G-d and lets the people for whom he/she is responsible suffer is not being righteous.
The other thing I noticed in the course of conversation was that, of course, all the tzaddikim are male. There are stories about righteous gentiles (although they're rarely, if ever, called tzadikkim: it seems to be a word that only applies inside the religion, which I'm not sure what I think of yet), but there are no stories taht I've heard in which a woman is termed a tzaddiket (if that's the proper feminine form- I suppose it might be tzaddikah. If someone knows, let me know, please. But well, the fact that I don't even know the proper word tells you exactly how much I haven't heard it used.) Righteous women don't get stories told about their acts of charity in the same way. And if they used the money that could have fed their families to buy a beautiful ritual object, as the plots of several of the stories I've heard about tzaddikim have involved, I'm pretty sure that they'd be properly criticized. So why is it an act of piety from a man?
no subject
A woman who had seven sons, each of whom did a stint as kohen gadol. When asked why she was so blessed, she responded that it was because the beams of her house never saw her hair.
Here we have a woman who is praised for her modesty and privacy, indeed, for her avoidance of the public eye. Her act of righteousness is the avoidance of being noticed.
There are various examples in halakha where it is said that if a woman is scrupulous about mitzvah X, her sons will grow up to be Torah scholars, or tzaddikim, or something else publicly meritorious. The best a woman can do is to strive for invisibility.
I agree with the irresponsibility theory. It receives support from two (quite possibly more) sources:
(1) The famous question in the Talmud: You and your friend are in the desert. You have enough water to get out, but your friend has no water. What to do? The Talmud prefers that you keep the water for yourself, since self preservation is one's first obligation.
(2) In D'varim, 33:18: "And of Zevulun he said: Rejoice O Zevulun on your journeys, and Issachar, in your tents." Rashi explains that there was symbiotic relationship between these tribes -- Zevulunites were merchants, and thus enabled Issacharites to stay home and study Torah. Rambam writes that "Whoever deliberately sets out to devote himself to Torah and not work for a living but be dependent on charity has thereby desecrated the divine name....." (Mishneh Torah) (This is all secondarily from Etz Hayim.) It is entirely clear that one's first priority is self-sustenance.
no subject
That said, I get ticked at that interpretation (all too common) of "kavod bat-hamelech pnima" "the homor of the king's daughter is inside", which gets read to be "inside the house", when, if I'm reading this correctly, it could be read as "inside herself", and thus be a dignity-affirming statement rather than a locational and restricting one.
I always liked that set of commentary from Etz Chayim. It's very useful in reminding people that the Rambam disapproved of Kollel.
no subject
no subject