Critical is not the same as heretical! Oh, and neither is curious!

I received the following email last night:

"I just read your latest post, and I am somewhat aquainted with the issue (I read the article, heard some shiurim, etc.) and I just want to know why you always take (on all the issues you blog about) the most liberal and cynical approach. I want to please understand that....

...It's not about believing things simply because you're told to. It's about not mingling in areas in which you are completely ignorant. When you are talking about nidah, which is accepted as is in its current form by every branch of Judaism, its not enough to be sceptical; you need to be knowledgeable. You know, a rabbi... Are you a rabbi?

Also, you're wrong about nidah being the only "hachlata" by jewish women (I can't believe you even doubt that as that's the way its presented EVERYWHERE!). Think shabbos candles, which the women voluntarily accepted upon themselves, and the rules of tznius, in which they set the standards, by which those who deviate are judged...

Not to mention your calling a minhag yisrael (which is torah!) a "damage" to femininity..."

I personally think the writer is off base because my post did not imply that I doubt that women created the practice--in fact, my whole point was that I don't understand why they did. I am sufficiently knowledgable about the subject to know the technical reasons for added stringency (zava vs. niddah, etc) but it isn't my place to comment on halakha. I comment on the human aspect, trying to bring out the humor if possible. But the fact is, people are clearly bothered by cynicism or commentary that regards anything in Judaism as human. Why?

Is my emuna lacking if I consider "the daughers of Israel" actual women with real motives? Is it disrespectful to talk about Chava as a human being and not a metaphor? Of course I know that a lot of what went on and why it had to be that way is beyond my comprehension, but it's my obligation to make my religion apply to my life, as a human, as a woman, etc... I don't imply that the chachamim intended to pull the wool over my eyes by saying 'the women decided', when really they were fully responsible but couldn't sell the idea alone. I am saying that in the mesora, there are many elements that were omitted because they were not necessary for the transmission of practice (or belief). I am allowed to be curious about the subtext, just as I am curious about all the human drama that was left out of Tanakh.

To my knowledge, my actions are in no way affected by my questions; I really think that should be the litmus test for believers--do you put your faith first or your doubts? The email calls me liberal and cynical. I'm fine with those labels so long as they apply to my thoughts and not my practice. In fact, I think everyone should keep their thinking liberal and their skepticism handy. (Unless you're a fan of fundmentalism...)