Avot029

6:
The second part of our present mishnah is problematic for us. It is problematic since for most of us it seems to be presenting an undertow of misogyny, or at the very least it seems to reflect the mores and assumptions of a society which does not hold women in high esteem. However, I think it would be wrong for us to mistake a society in which women held a different place in the social scheme of things for a society in which women were repressed and held in light esteem. The hierarchy of society during the times of which we speak (and for several centuries before and after those times) was such that women were held in highest esteem when they confined themselves to the management of their household and were extremely reticent to 'expose' themselves to public scrutiny.

7:
We must always bear in mind that our sources were authored by men and reflect the general attitudes of the men of their time. These attitudes are very different from attitudes held in general today. Had we been holding this shiur in the year 1704 or 1804 (and maybe even 1904) rather than 2004 I suspect that we would rather be nodding our heads if not in agreement at least in understanding. The mores of societies change over long periods of time. In a seminal work written fifty years ago a British scholar, Gordon Rattray Taylor, presents and exemplifies the contention that social mores swing backwards and forwards between two basic societal attitudes, which he calls "patristic" and "matristic". (Taylor was, for many years, chief scientific advisor for BBC TV, and was the author of many highly regarded works.) The book to which I refer, "Sex in History" is nowadays considered to be so seminal that it is available 'in toto' on the Internet. His main thesis is presented in tabular form in Chapter 4, where the main indications of each kind of society are represented, as follows:

To these twelve points, others of a more derivative character could be added, such as a tendency for patrists to favour plain and sombre clothing, and for matrists to prefer rich, colourful and extravagant clothes, but these explain themselves.

It must be stressed that these two patterns are extremes: when society is changing from patrism to matrism, or vice
versa, there will be an intervening period in which the patterns will become confused. Moreover, there may be some
happy periods in which people succeed in introjecting both parental figures in harmonious balance – but, owing to the
pressure of the Oedipal conflict, there is a natural tendency to fall off the fence on one side or the other. Again, in individual cases, much will depend upon the parent's own psychological history. The child who models himself on a father who has himself identified with his father will obviously turn out differently from one whose father had introjected a mother figure. But we are not concerned with particular cases, only with general trends.

Thus far Rattray Taylor.

We are, in western society at any rate, at the present time in the upswing of matrism (and a consequent reaction from patristic quarters). This matristic upswing began, as a reaction to Victorian patrism, in the last decades of the 19th century and has been gathering momentum ever since. Other parts of the world are heavily patristic at the moment. In particular, I think we should note that modern Conservative Judaism seems to exhibit – rather belatedly, some would say – the major values of matrism, while in general orthodoxy still seems to be quite patristic. At any rate, modern Conservative Judaism is a Judaism in which most of the values of a matristic society are clearly demonstrated, in particular, but not exclusively, as regards the status of women.

8:
This recognition of a basic difference between matrism and patrism should be enough to explain to us why we find ourselves shying away from an implied misogyny which seems to be evinced in the words of Yosé ben-Yoĥanan in our mishnah.

To be continued.

In Avot 027 we quoted: Hillel and Menaĥem did not disagree [on this matter], but Menaĥem left [office] and was replaced by Shammai: Shammai says not to lay hands, Hillel says to do so. The former [in each pair] were the Presidents [of the Sanhedrin] and the latter were Presidents of the Court [- Av Bet Din]. I then added the following comment: Of course, all those in this list who hold that on a festival hands should not be laid on the head of an animal destined for sacrifice belong to the more aristocratic and conservative branch of the Pharisaic movement while those that hold that this ceremony is permitted are the more "plebeian" and liberal personalities.

David Baird writes:

I just had an insight into the differences between Hillel and Shammai. Really, until you wrote this midrash, I didn't know that they were a zug. I always understood the competition between them on issues of law, and through your lessons that Hillel more liberal and Shammai more conservative. Where did I miss that connection to the zuggot? Did I fall asleep in that lecture? To my insight… It seems that being the president of the court, Shammai's opinions are perhaps more pragmatic and more attune to one who presides over judgments of law which affect court cases. Surely, the cases between landowners and businessmen were those most heard by the courts. On the other hand, Hillel was more concerned with the ethics of the law, and not how to apply them to a specific court case. Hillel is more like the parliamentarian dealing with law as it applies to the general population, and Shammai more like the judge applying the law to a case brought before him. Furthermore, in this light, it makes more sense to accept Hillel's application of the law over Shammai's, for his position affects the general use and future of the law. It may be understood that Shammai had power over important court cases, and Hillel could disagree for the
interests of the many. It makes an interesting system of checks and balances between the Court and the Sanhedrin, but also highlights the importance of the separation of power between the two. It also makes sense that Hillel, the elder of the zuggot, be president of the Sanhedrin. Shammai perhaps worked his way up through the court system?

Comments on David's insight would be welcome.