Tzaddikim and Jewish Mothers

[debka_notion]

I was talking to 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?

Comments

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

I've heard that story as well, and it rather baffles me, since on a literal level, of course the beams of her house never saw her hair- they don't have eyes, and on a more serious level because there's no prohibition for a married woman's family to see her hair. So there she is being rewarded second-hand for being overly strict in her observance of a particular mitzvah. I suppose you could argue that it is similar to the hiddur mitzvah that some of the tzaddikim stories get into (the ones I Really object to) where the tzaddik buys a beautiful etrog or the like instead of food for his family (admittedly that example comes from an Agnon story that Rabbi Lehmann read to us in the sukkah this year, but there are other examples, this one just comes to mind). But the one about this righteous woman- no one suffers because she is so careful about her hair covering, except maybe her husband, and then it's an aesthetic suffering, not a physical one.

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.

[nuqotw.livejournal.com]

The 'inside oneself' vs. 'inside the house' interpretation is the deciding factor in whether the mechitzah is beautiful or degrading. When it is used to keep us all inside ourselves, it is a great idea. When it is used to remove half the people in shul from the service, it is an abomination. Whilst the proponents of the mechitzah tout the former notion, all too often it is the latter which practically prevails. Incidentally, doesn't the Hebrew make it obvious -- inside the house == kavod bat-hamelech babayit, which isn't even close to pnima.

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

The thing is that the first time I encountered the phrase, it was in a description of the Rambam's use of that phrase to justify the idea that women should remain mostly inside the house- he saw himself as being very enlightened and freeing when he said that women should be allowed out of the house twice a month, to visit their mothers/sisters and to go to simchas. ON the other hand, he was coming from a strict Muslim outer culture, which clearly influenced things. But he was able to use that phrase to mean inside the home rather than internal to the self, so clearly it's an option used by other people...