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
no subject