Quantcast
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 323

Hair of the Dog

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Photo from myjewishlearning.com

A few years ago my husband and I received a wedding invitation from friends marrying off their son.  Being a modern orthodox family, we assumed that the wedding would have mixed seating of men and women at the dinner reception.  As many similar functions in our community are becoming increasingly sex segregated, we looked forward to an evening out that we would actually get to spend together.

Imagine our dismay when we arrived at the event, went to look for our seating cards, and found that we were placed at two separate tables.  Another one bites the dust.  My husband and I said our reluctant farewells, retreated to our separate sides of the mechitza, and he texted me to meet him in the lobby at the end of the evening.  So much for date night.

The next time my husband saw the father of the groom, he asked him why he would have separate seating at the event.  The man responded that there were a few prominent rabbis that he invited who would not have come if there had been mixed seating.  In order to accommodate their delicate sensibilities, he made his entire simcha separate seating so that no one would be offended.

My husband told me privately that the father’s tactic hadn’t worked, because we were offended!

When does one person’s religious sensibilities take precedence over another person’s?  Is it when those sensibilities are more conservative or right wing?  The more stringent the opinion, the more valid it must be?

Another example of this placation happened recently when we were involved in planning an organizational dinner.  This organization historically had mixed seating at its dinner, but this year, a few committee members suggested that since attendees would be running the full spectrum of orthodoxy, perhaps it was time to make it a separate seating affair.  In the end, the majority of the dinner was mixed seating, with two separate seating tables for those who requested it.  Those tables were basically empty the entire night.

When we got married 19 years ago, Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik, was our mesader kiddushin. We knew that there were some people attending who would be more comfortable with separate seating, but we also knew that we had many more people who would be uncomfortable with it. We decided to ask Rabbi Soloveichik if he wanted us to make two separate seating tables to accommodate himself and other such guests. He told us he preferred to sit with next to his wife, as she cuts up his meat for him! In the end, we had no separate tables.

I don’t think that the “hair of the dog” approach to hyper-chumra stringencies works.  The belief that rabies could be prevented by putting the “hair of the dog” that bit you into the wound came about during time of Shakespeare.  Now that phrase is more commonly used to describe an alcoholic beverage taken in the morning as a cure for a hangover.   The general concept is to cure a problem by using a bit of the substance that caused the original problem.

When we decide, in the name of tolerance and inclusiveness, to change our manner of behavior (such as mixed seating events) we are using the hair of the dog approach.  However, the more we adopt these chumras as a means of accommodation to our more right wing brethren, the more these chumras become ingrained in our society at large.  By trying to be non-offensive, we are ensuring that our own customs are being eliminated.  I have no problem respecting the mores of those who make a simcha and want total separation of men and women.  I will stick to my side of the mechitza.  What I want to know is why this respect can’t work both ways?


Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 323

Trending Articles