- This topic has 195 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I’ve been getting a little annoyed about the conversations people were having about chassidish women driving, or should I say, *against* chassidish women driving, a little while ago. The one that got me the most was when someone passed along a video about the ban in London, with a quote from Neshei Belz saying that they avoid driving to respect morality, as they “believe that driving a vehicle is a high pressured activity where [their] values may be compromised by exposure to selfishness, road-rage, bad language, and other inappropriate behaviour”.
I would make a couple points to that-
A. Simply walking in the street in any big city will put you face-to-face with all of that, does that mean eventually they may decide not to have women leave the home at all?
B. Instead of driving, women often take car service- they are on the road in a car driven by strange men who are frequently of low class and standards, who sometimes are not the best drivers either, leading again to women coming face to face with the above-mentioned inappropriate behaviors. (And women waiting alone on the sidewalk late at night, then getting into a car with a male stranger, or being hassled by the driver as they struggle to load 3 children and a double stroller into the back… I’m sure that is less pressured and more appropriate behavior?)
C. Women sometimes take the train instead, which puts them right next to awful ads and some pretty awful people too, in an enclosed compartment for some time, and at the mercy of whichever music or shpiel some singer or preacher decides to enlighten their trapped audience with.
The conclusion that I have come to is that they are not banned from driving because of any tznius or morality or however you’d like to say it- I think it’s because this way they are more easily controlled. The men have a bigger say on where, what, how, and when the women do anything; the women are limited in how they spend their day, and always dependent on their husbands’ money to call a car to get anywhere. The ability to drive empowers you in a very real way, it gives you a broader freedom, and I believe that’s what those chassidish communities are trying to avoid for their women. And if that’s the case, I find it wrong that they pin it on tznius and morality and good yiddishkeit, because that’s what turns people off eventually.
The real reason for the ban against chassidish women driving?
Forget what some Nshei Whatever said. They probably said whatever they said for public consumption amongst the masses of gentiles and secular who don’t understand one iota of Torah, tznius and yiddishkeit. The main (but perhaps not only) reason is Shulchan Aruch. Specifically Shulchan Aruch EH 73:1. Shulchan Aruch says a woman’s place is at home and that a wife should not go outside too much. If a woman is a licensed driver and has a car at her immediate disposal to fly off to wherever she wants, there is no question that she will be spending much more time outside of the home than she would be spending outside of the home if she is not a licensed driver.
If you don’t like Shulchan Aruch or think it is no longer relevant or applicable in the 21st century, then I can’t help you.
If you don’t like Shulchan Aruch or think it is no longer relevant or applicable in the 21st century, then I can’t help you.
One can like very much that it says this in the Shulchan Aruch. But it has nothing to do with women driving.
ittsme
All your logic doesn’t necessarily support your conclusion
Your conclusion is a rather feministic theory and as a general rule I think we can be dan lkav zchus that chassidush rabbunim have more morality than what you are suggesting.
So whats the answer
First you need to understand that the answer may simply be, its tradition.
I am a litvak, and therefore all your questions are questions that I would ask.
But thats not how chassidum look at things. I have chassidush relatives and they look at anything that is traditional as halacha. They don’t ask questions (not halachic nor modern ) on an established tradition.
Even though that’s not how I do things, I respect that approach to our religion.
Joseph:
If a woman is a licensed driver and has a car at her immediate disposal to fly off to wherever she wants, there is no question that she will be spending much more time outside of the home than she would be spending outside of the home if she is not a licensed driver.
With that sort of logic, the Gedolim would be telling us that women shouldn’t vote, work, or go shopping, and the husband should be Mechuyav to do all these things for his wife.
Thoughts?
One can like very much that it says this in the Shulchan Aruch. But it has nothing to do with women driving.
That is true. And, indeed, those that posit as such permit women to drive. Those that posit the aforementioned Shulchan Aruch is relevant to women driving, posit that it is impermissible for them to drive. Both halachic positions exists among various poskim.
Rav Vozner paskens that women should not drive:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1414&st=&pgnum=9&hilite=
Every woman should make her own choice as to whether or not she wants to drive. I do drive, but I know some women who choose not to and I respect their right to make that choice.
Specifically Shulchan Aruch EH 73:1. Shulchan Aruch says a woman’s place is at home and that a wife should not go outside too much
Perhaps then the men should leave Kollel and go out and work so the women can stay at home
A woman’s place is at home much of the time, but taking kids to cheder some of the time.
gavra: There’s a tradeoff that needs to be evaluated. Ideally, indeed, women should not be working outside of the home. (Stay-at-home-moms is in fact more common amongst chasidim.) But oftentimes there’s unfortunately no choice but to have a second income or for the wife to bring home the groceries.
Sometimes a b’dieved is a necessity.
@itssme: You have put together a couple of fairly logical arguments against a pretty illogical public statement, and as a result jumped to your own conclusions.
You can’t do that. Feel free to argue with their logic. Feel free to suggest your own reasons to ban ladies driving. But don’t suggest your own reasons and argue with them!
Secondly, if you do think that is the reason, surely you have more to complain about than misrepresentation of the ban to the press? Do you not have a mouthful to complain about domineering husbands controlling their wives and taking away the freedom? You sound like you support the ideology, but don’t like the fact that they disguised it from the public.
I’m banning hiking sneakers for women. They are designed for long outdoor use. Without them women would spend more time in the house where they belong.
Joseph: We should not teach women to walk because that also is important for them to leave the house.
Sam: You sound like you’re alluding to the Gemora in Yavamos 76, when answering R. Yochanan the Gemora says women do not roam. Or perhaps you were thinking of the Gra (4): Hashem did not create Chavah from Adam’s foot, lest she roam too much (Bereishis Rabah 18:2). “Ishtecha k’Gefen Poriyah” is only when she is modest “b’Yarkesei Veisecha” (Medrash Tehilim 128:3).
If the issue is not leaving the house, then why driving? Why not say they can’t use a car service, or a bus? Or just say women shouldn’t leave the house?
I don’t drive and there is no bearing on being “controlled”.
In fact, of the women I know who do and don’t drive, there is absolutely no difference in terms of who does the controlling in the marriage.
This is what Belz chose for their community. You don’t like it, join the less strict Belzers, they exist. This is what the community wants.
DM: That would be a difficult hanhaga to impose and people might not adhere to it. The driving rule has been in force for well over half a century and very well adhered to, for the most part. The S”A says they shouldn’t leave too much, not that they can’t ever leave. By placing a restriction on driving it accomplishes a limitation. The other items you wonder why aren’t restricted, would almost make it into a ban on necessary and permissible travel.
Also, Rav Vozner writes in his psak that the Gemora’s restriction against women driving a wagon carries over to driving.
If the issue is not leaving the house, then why driving? Why not say they can’t use a car service, or a bus? Or just say women shouldn’t leave the house?
Be realistic. The aim is not to disable women from leaving the house. The aim is to take away the luxury of driving. Ask anybody who drives who suddenly lost his car for two weeks. Obviously, you can still get lifts, take taxis or use the bus. But that is all inconvenient. You aren’t your own boss. It definitely limits leaving the house to necessities rather than luxuries.
The question is simply whether the advantages are outweighed by the dangers of such travel (see OP).
Banning women from driving is ridiculous.
gavra: There’s a tradeoff that needs to be evaluated. Ideally, indeed, women should not be working outside of the home. (Stay-at-home-moms is in fact more common amongst chasidim.) But oftentimes there’s unfortunately no choice but to have a second income or for the wife to bring home the groceries.
Sometimes a b’dieved is a necessity.
Very good. So you will admit that a blanket statement such as “no woman should drive” is really Quixotic, just like “every person should be learning Torah 24/7”. Certainly not something that is meant to be put into practice, even as a general rule.
By placing a restriction on driving it accomplishes a limitation. The other items you wonder why aren’t restricted, would almost make it into a ban on necessary and permissible travel.
Similar to driving, the prohibition should be a blanket one, with specific exceptions allowed for what is absolutely necessary (and then only with additional gedarim, such as Burkas).
“I don’t drive and there is no bearing on being “controlled”.”
It seems to me that you live in a big city.
If you lived in a suburban area, where you have to drive to get groceries, do carpool, etc. it would be difficult.
This is what Belz chose for their community. You don’t like it, join the less strict Belzers, they exist. This is what the community wants.
I have no issue with this, as it treats women driving similar to wearing a Spodik.
It seems to me that you live in a big city.
If you lived in a suburban area, where you have to drive to get groceries, do carpool, etc. it would be difficult.
The kehillas that have this restriction tend to live in cities or self-sufficient towns that people are within walking distance to many necessities and have school busing and modes of public transportation.
Also, Rav Vozner writes in his psak that the Gemora’s restriction against women driving a wagon carries over to driving.
While I dont have an exact psak quote, The women of Lakewood do drive so obviously Rav Aharon Kotler permitted it.
The kehillas that have this restriction tend to live in cities or self-sufficient towns that people are within walking distance to many necessities and have school busing and modes of public transportation.
Kiryat Joel is not in a city and is more spread out than williamsburg and you really need a car there
“The kehillas that have this restriction tend to live in cities or self-sufficient towns that people are within walking distance to many necessities and have school busing and modes of public transportation.”
I imagine that they have larger families so that the housewife has enough to keep her busy at home.
Although I do have to agree with the OP’s questions. There seems to be an incongruence between the reasons given for the ban and some of the results of the ban.
WADR, I disagree with the OP’s assumption. Its pretty standard by chassidim that women don’t drive, and whether you agree with it or not, they’re certainly being consistent.
This is what Belz chose for their community. You don’t like it, join the less strict Belzers, they exist. This is what the community wants.
+1
@bigben2- I definitely don’t support the ideology. But what upsets me more is when people are forced to take on (if they drive, their kids are kicked out of yeshiva)- very strict laws, and told that that’s what being Jewish is about, it’s all in order to be a good Jew, it’s halacha. Not necessarily…
I would compare this to a school in London, whose official government criteria includes all mothers dressing in accordance to Oz Vehadar Levusha. The school has the right not to accept any student whose mother doesn’t dress according to the school standard.
This isn’t “forcing people” to be more machmir than Halachah. This isn’t blackmailing people into chumras they aren’t willing to take on.
This is a school deciding on a certain standard of frumkeit – a standard which may be higher than the norm, and may be more than strictly required lehalachah. But the school is entitled to set a standard. If you don’t want to be on the same standard as the rest of the school, feel free to send your son elsewhere. But other children have a right to be educated together with friends who were raised in an environment similar to their own (at least from a Torahdike perspective).
Nobody is ostracizing any woman who drives. This is a simple rule – “Do Not Drive Your Son To School”. Nobody is even threatening to kick out kids from the school, contrary to the overmagnified press reports. “Turn away at the gates” doesn’t mean expel. If you don’t feel ready to accept the “chumra”, please feel free to ask your own Rav and do your own thing. But don’t do it in our school.
i’d like to posit that the real reason the op started this thread is because he/she is looking to poke fun of people who have a standard and stick to it. it makes him/her uncomfortable. instead of improving his/herself and trying to rise up to their level, he/she chose to try and chop them down to his level, by ridiculing them. this may sound ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than the conclusions reached by the op.
MDG, I do not live in a big city. We have to drive to get groceries.
@Torah613: You may not see a difference in “who controls the marriage”, but you probably don’t have the same sense of freedom that a woman who drives has! Again, this does not have to reflect on the marriage itself; it is a sense of how much you are independent of your driving spouse.
The reason boils down to two things. Power and Control. Now, it may be from a Belzer perspective the exercise of that power and control over the women in the community is good and appropriate. And it may also be true that some or even many of the women in the community welcome and accept that power and control over them. And it may even be true that the exercise of power and control over the flock is the most appropriate venue for daas torah in the community. But please, please lets not make irrational and illogical representations that it is a matter of tzniyus in any conventional sense. Dishonesty is a horrible midda.
Oh, Hi. I’m back.
The ??? ???? linked above (here it is again):
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1414&st=&pgnum=9&hilite=
does indeed say it’s a matter of tznius. The ??? ???? ??”? was neither irrational nor illogical, and not dishonest. My community, and my poskim, are okay with women driving, and my female relatives drive, but I respect those who don’t as having a legitimate tznius sensitivity. I’m sorry if you can’t.
Welcome back.
I am also firm believer of accepting the Chumras other people have, whether I want to keep them myself or not, and whether they are socially accepted in my circles or not. However, it is sometimes difficult to see the logic in certain chumras.
DaasYochid – You are definitely right. Whether or not this is the Belz reason for the ban, the R Vosner zt”l clearly writes against women driving out of tznius concerns.
But the OP has some interesting points, and certainly isn’t the first to voice these questions. What about women driving is less tznius than a women in the passenger seat?
DY, thanks for the welcome.
When it comes to individuals, I start with respect and finish with it. When it comes to ideologies or “camps” I’ve come to the conclusion that respect is a two way street. No one gets a free pass if they aren’t demonstrating respect for other deiyos, even the ones they disagree with. So I’m not automatically respecting the policy of sensitivity to tzniyus, though I can respect an individual’s practice of it.
I have no idea how that answers my point that one of the gedolei haposkim clearly says it’s a tznius issue, and that you called that view irrational, illogical, and dishonest.
BB2, he writes that he knows from experience that it leads to problems, and that the inherent problem is difficult to explain in writing. That is partially why I call it a “sensitivity”.
I do have my thoughts, but I don’t think this is the venue for it.
DY: certain tznius issues (non erva) differ depending on the place and time. If it was a tznius issue in one setting it can still be irrational and absurd in another. This is called common sense. I recommend it.
Speak about controlling… How I just WISH Frogette would learn how to drive. I’d get about two extra hours a day (for posting)…
Besalel:
What setting do you think yichusdik was referring to in which it would illogical and absurd, that Rav Vosner would agree to?
Dy: Bnei brak in the ’60s and not London in 2015. And I am sorry for my unnecessarily harsh and gratuitous ending to my last post. I just feel like Charlton Heston sometimes.
I suppose, DY, that a priori if I have an opinion that is in conflict with someone’s daas torah, no amount of explanation will make it less appalling to the followers of said daas torah. That being said – If a community gives its women a responsibility, and that responsibility can be accomplished by someone dressed, acting, and comporting themselves in a tzanuah way, and the means to most efficiently and effectively accomplish that responsibility in a way neither contemplated by nor addressed by earlier poskim upon which certain chumros purport to rely, and the use of which in itself transgresses no clear halacha, I find it irrational and illogical to assert and enforce such a prohibition, especially by extorting compliance by threatening to remove children from a school. Extortion, namely the threat of expulsion and exclusion of children who have no choice in the matter to ensure compliance, is a vile way for anyone to exert control or assert power. Violating dina demalchusa dina for a questionable chumra is irrational. Making it more difficult for some mothers to accomplish their responsibilities when they are already nshei chayil binding the community together is illogical. And I find the way that the message was finessed and then walked back to be dishonest.
But I don’t believe I used the word absurd. You did, DY.
Besalel, apology accepted.
Yichusdik, maybe I misunderstand, so please explain, but it seems that the first half of your post is arguing with R. Vosner, and the second half, merely arguing with its application.
I do not find the distinction compelling. The issue of tznius didn’t change; perhaps the tzorech changed, perhaps it didn’t.
My use of the word absurd was in response to besalel, who used it in reference to your position (as I understand). If you have an issue with it, take it up with him, not me.
DY I am definitely arguing with both; and if anything I have more disdain for the application. It troubles me greatly that in pursuit of upholding a standard of tznius that a day, a week, a month before the women weren’t considered to be breaching, such psychological violence as extortion is used. That is transparently leverage of power and control. And not only of the women, but of their spouses as well. To me, this matrix of extortion indicates that tznius is a straw man here.
Sorry about questioning your use of the absurd word.
I am definitely arguing with both
I don’t know the situation in England; I don’t live in that community (I suspect that you don’t either).
The fact that you are still essentially calling the ??? ???? irrational, illogical, and dishonest, leaves me with no respect for your opinion on the application to London.
Sorry about questioning your use of the absurd word.
Accepted.
Is Belz against female ambulance drivers who will help assist a woman to give birth instead of a man?
How did the Bnoz Zlavchad run their farms?
Who drove Rivka’s camel? Maybe we can learn from that story that is ok to drive a motorcycle.
I would speculate that not to many non-Jewish woman drove wagons. Whereas the automobile today is a lot easier to drive and woman know most non-Jewish woman have driver’s licenses.
Joseph, actually it is the Tur who says that. The Chelkak Mechakek comments that she is required to go to shiva houses and celebrations. In any case, he does not define “too much”. Obviously this depends on the time and place. For example, even several hundred years ago it was common for women to conduct business matters with men (Levush, Likutei Minhagim 36). A woman is not a prisoner in her own home (Rambam Hilchot Ishut 13:11) although she should not go out ALL THE TIME just to hang around (ibid). However, she may certainly travel frequently for the sake of mitzvot, as does Rebbetzin Jungreis, who also speaks regularly for the United States Army and Navy as well as for the Israel Defense Forces.
Don’t bring proof from Rav Aharon Kotler z”l. First of all, Rav Aharon had bigger issues on his mind at the time than female driving. Second, people were not stupid back then to manufacture stupid moronic halachic shaaleh for the sake of showing off that they asked the Rosh yeshiva a Shaaleh. People today make up shailos so they have an excuse for a photo op with a gadol.
I think its very legitimate to bring up Rav Kotler, If people are going to quote other Gedolim, Rav Kotlers opinon counts too
I have personally seen Rebbetzin Neuman (The Grandaughter of Rav Kotler) drive Rav Neuman
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.