Disclaimers:
1. I don't like the whole "woman's role" or "women in Judaism" terminology, for reasons that should become clear below. I'm just using it for convenience, because people know what it means.
2. The following is not a true paradox; like "woman's role", "paradox" is just a convenient term.
So here's my "paradox": The Rambam opened the door for the whole idea of a "woman's role", but I think he didn't believe that there was such a thing.
One hand:
The Rambam is famous for promoting the idea of taamei hamitzvos, that we are meant to decipher a Divine Will behind the instructions Gd gave us. True, we won't comprehend everything, and failure to comprehend should not translate into failure to observe [see Hilchos Meilah 8:8], but we are meant to investigate mitzvos and discover Divine intent and philosophy behind them.
So it is that Kashrut may not be a set of disparate dietary laws, but a guide to healthy eating, or a unique diet setting us apart from the nations.
So it is that the laws of male haircuts may not be a set of grooming rules, but a way to distinguish ourselves from Egyptian priests.
And so it is that we look at a woman's exemption/exclusion from various duties, and deduce a greater philosophical picture of "How the Torah views women". It's an extension of the Rambam's approach to divining taamei hamitzvos.
The other hand:
The Talmud (Mishnah Kiddushin 1:7) declares that women are exempt from time-bound duties, unless we have an opposing lesson for a particular duty. Most authorities seem to view this as a prescriptive rule; when considering a woman's obligation in particular mitzvah, I can ask, "Is this time-bound?" And if the answer is Yes, then I can assume that women are exempt.
This rule leads to a taamei hamitzvos-style question: Why is the woman exempt from time-bound duties? Is it because the Torah's view of women is that they are dedicated to family and therefore they need their time free? Is it because they don't need the rigorous scheduling and structure that men need? And so we craft ideas of a "woman's role".
But the Rambam discounted the whole idea that this is a prescriptive rule. As he explained in his commentary to this mishnah, there are many exceptions to this "rule", and it is actually not a rule at all, but only a convenient-but-incomplete way to describe a set of duties from which women are exempt. The Rambam rejects the whole idea that we are meant to connect women and time in some philosophical way – undermining the "woman's role" that others have described.
This is probably wishful thinking, but I'd like to believe that when the Rambam dynamited the "time-bound duties" concept, he was really dynamiting the idea of a "woman's role" altogether. I find the concept of "woman's role" to be of the unhealthiest breed of taamei hamitzvos, placing a false face on the Torah's laws based on whatever fad is current, and so demanding that people come up with new roles that fit better with our zeitgeist, regardless of how well or poorly those new roles fit actual Torah, or actual women.
Sometimes a mitzvah is just a mitzvah, an exemption or exclusion is just an exemption or exclusion, and there are no roles involved.
[And speaking of role-busting, I made this three-cheese baked ziti with spinach for the kids the other night, and it was very good. I recommend the recipe.]
Showing posts with label Judaism: Women's Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judaism: Women's Issues. Show all posts
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Resource Guide: Changing the Role of Women in Public Prayer
[Note: I have used the label "women's issues" to tag this post, but under protest. I don't truly believe that there are "women's issues" in Judaism, any more than there are "men's issues". I use the label only because, realistically, I know that this is how people will find the post when they are looking for it.]
During the past few decades, numerous changes have been proposed for the role of women in Orthodox public prayer. These include women's tefillah groups, women's Torah readings, women leading Kabbalat Shabbat and Psukei d'Zimra, and women's aliyot in the context of partnership minyanim.
During the past few decades, numerous changes have been proposed for the role of women in Orthodox public prayer. These include women's tefillah groups, women's Torah readings, women leading Kabbalat Shabbat and Psukei d'Zimra, and women's aliyot in the context of partnership minyanim.
One set of arguments surrounding these changes is technical - what is permitted, what is prohibited, and so on.
The other set of arguments looks at the mechanisms of change, and the ramifications of change - slippery slope, motivations, strife, speed of change and so on. I find these arguments and counter-arguments interesting, but they are scattered across blog posts and articles, with considerable overlap as well as conflict.
The other set of arguments looks at the mechanisms of change, and the ramifications of change - slippery slope, motivations, strife, speed of change and so on. I find these arguments and counter-arguments interesting, but they are scattered across blog posts and articles, with considerable overlap as well as conflict.
Recently, I
presented a shiur for avreichim in our Beit Midrash on these change-related arguments, and I tried to organize the positions, listing sources for the argument as well as opposing the
argument.
Here is the chart I used for the shiur, grouping the change-related arguments into five categories. I hope that this will be useful for people.
Note: I am not saying whether I agree with any particular argument brought here.
Note: I am not saying whether I agree with any particular argument brought here.
PREFACE: Web-available articles
on the technical issues surrounding women's involvement in particular parts of davening
- Partnership Guidelines and Related Phenomena
- R' Michael Broyde
- On women receiving aliyot (abridged version of a longer article in Studies in Honour of Bernard S. Jackson)
- On women leading Kabbalat Shabbat
- On women serving as Rabbis (Hakirah)
- On a women's-only Torah reading
- On women and Tallit
- R' Zev Farber - On Partnership Minyanim
- R' Barry Freundel
- The Frimers
- R' Yehuda Herzl Henkin - On women and Torah reading
- R' Mendel Shapiro - On women and Torah reading
- R' Daniel Sperber - On women and Torah reading
CATEGORY 1: Where will
this lead?
Slippery slope – Once you change this, what's next?
Sources for the argument
Objections to the argument
The lines are blurry – Having women lead a permitted
part of davening will naturally slip into women leading other parts of davening
Sources
Objection
This will cause inappropriate mingling of genders
Source and Objection: R' Shapiro pg. 50 (Torah reading)
This will strengthen non-Orthodox movements
Source
Objections
The arguments supporting change will be borrowed by
non-Orthodox authorities
CATEGORY 2: Is this change justified?
No one has provided statistics supporting the need for
change
Sources
R' Freundel here (Hirhurim, long article - Partnership Minyanim), here (Hirhurim - Partnership Minyanim) and here (Hirhurim - Partnership Minyanim)
Objections
Is the motivation positive,
and addressing a real need?
SourceIgrot Moshe Orach Chaim 4:49
Objection
R' Shapiro pg. 49 (Torah reading)
This is inauthentic, endorsing a false goal instead of promoting mitzvot
Sources R' Broyde here (Hirhurim - Tallit) and here (Hirhurim - Torah reading)
R' Farber (Morethodoxy - General)
This will assign
identical roles to men and women
Mechon Yerushalayim l'Dayyanut (Partnership Minyanim)
This will lead to men
not being involved
Source and Objection R' Broyde pg. 55 (Hakirah - Women Rabbis)
CATEGORY 4: This will
create division in the community
The halachic issue of Lo Titgodidu
Source and Objection – R' Shapiro pp. 50-51 (Torah reading)
The change will create unjustified
strife
SourceR' Broyde (Hirhurim - Torah reading)
Objection
R' Farber (Morethodoxy - Partnership Minyanim)
CATEGORY 5: This isn't
the proper approach to halachic change
It's too fast; time is
needed
Sources Sridei Eish 1:139
R' Dr. Norman Lamm, cited on pp. 48-49 (Hakirah - Women Rabbis)
Objection
R' Sperber pg. 14 (Edah - Torah reading)
"Kvod haBriyyot"
does not warrant carte blanche
Sources R' Freundel pp. 8-10 (Hirhurim, long article - Partnership Minyanim)
We have a negative
masorah against these changes
SourcesR' Frimer (Seforim Blog - On R' Sperber's Darkah shel Halachah)
R' Henkin pp. 5-6 (Edah - Torah reading)
Objections
R' Broyde pg. 44-46 (Hakirah - Women Rabbis)
R' Sperber pp. 5-13 (Edah - Torah reading)
R' Shapiro pp. 44-48 (Torah reading)
Those who justify
change are fabricating halachic concepts to justify their actions
SourcesR' Freundel here (Hirhurim - Partnership Minyanim) and here (Hirhurim - Partnership Minyanim)
Objection
R' Farber (Morethodoxy - Partnership Minyanim)
The established chachamim object
Sources MiPninei haRav pg. 82
R' Henkin pg. 6 (Edah - Torah reading)
R' Broyde pg. 48 (Hakirah - Women Rabbis)
R' Aharon Lichtenstein, cited on pp. 51-52 (Hakirah - Women Rabbis)
Objection
R' Broyde (Hirhurim - Kabbalat Shabbat)
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Men, Women and the Synagogue
The problem of equal participation in the synagogue has come up a lot recently, in part stemming from the annual Simchas Torah question of whether to hold women's hakafos, and Torah-readings or simulated Torah-readings by and for women.
I am troubled by my own conservative stance on this issue. I believe it's the right stance for the synagogue as it was meant to be, but not for the synagogue as most people perceive it today.
As I understand it, the synagogue, in its origins, was a space for the Jew to express his/her full relationship with Gd. The synagogue was meant to be the site of particular rituals, a mini-Beit haMikdash as it was classically called. Nothing more.
To me, the Jew's relationship with Gd was meant to be expressed and developed in personal life, in private existence, in a grateful modeh ani upon rising and a pensive hamapil upon retiring to bed, in a berachah before eating and a dvar torah at the meal and birkat hamazon at the close, in giving tzedakah and speaking positively of others and giving terumah to the kohanim and maaser to the leviyyim, in planting trees and harvesting crops, in remembering yetziat mitzrayim and developing the land of Israel.
The synagogue was not meant to define my religious experience; it was a place for me to go for krias hatorah, for a minyan to do what a minyan does. And yes, it was male-dominated.
But this viewpoint is hard to swallow today, in a world which generally supports an ahistorical understanding of the synagogue: a community center (beit haknesset) and focal point for all manner of social organization.
Today, the synagogue has become the sum of so much of our Jewish life, and so it makes perfect sense that everyone would see it as part of their religious bailiwick. Of course everyone wants an equal role in synagogue ritual; I believe that many if not most are sincerely seeking inspiration and connection and a substantive role in building a strong religious community.
For the synagogue as people view it today, our current system is an offense to serious women, and the initiatives which my part of the Orthodox community offers to level the playing field only highlight the inequality and deepen the offense. Even the most "avant garde" - taking the Torah through the women's section, having women deliver divrei torah and so on - only underscore the fact that men are the ones to lein, receive aliyos and lead davening.
But to return to my view, the true synagogue is to Judaism what the showroom floor is to automobile manufacturing - an important element, but not where the car is made. It's a shiny space very much on display, but the production, the sale, the driving and the servicing take place elsewhere. And the result of the modern, altered perception of the synagogue is a disaster far beyond the issue of male/female; the result is a Jewish world which often leaves its religion at the door of the synagogue.
Or to use Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch's words, from Dayyan Grunfeld's introduction to Horeb (full credit to Rabbi Ezra Goldschmiedt for reminding me of this passage):
If I had the power I would provisionally close all synagogues for a hundred years. Do not tremble at the thought of it, Jewish heart. What would happen? Jews and Jewesses without synagogues, desiring to remain such, would be forced to concentrate on a Jewish life and a Jewish home. The Jewish officials connected with the synagogue would have to look to the only opportunity now open to them - to teach young and old how to live a Jewish life and how to build a Jewish home. All synagogues closed by Jewish hands would constitute the strongest protest against the abandonment of the Torah in home and life.
Imagine if we would do that... but I think it's really too late. Genies don't like to return to their bottles, and synagogues are not apt to lose their centrality. Further, such a move would likely have devastating results, certainly in North America; quite a few 20th century North American communities tried to create "Jewish Community Center"s which did not host religious ritual, and in many of those communities the experiment failed. Further, in my pulpit days I would not have wanted our synagogue to have lost its centrality; we accomplished a great deal of good for a great many people. Should I ever return to the pulpit, it would be to a community synagogue, not a dedicated prayer space.
So we have a synagogue that tries to be old-school mini-Temple as well as community center in a modern world, and it can't really do both without alienating people.
So I don't know what happens now.
I am troubled by my own conservative stance on this issue. I believe it's the right stance for the synagogue as it was meant to be, but not for the synagogue as most people perceive it today.
As I understand it, the synagogue, in its origins, was a space for the Jew to express his/her full relationship with Gd. The synagogue was meant to be the site of particular rituals, a mini-Beit haMikdash as it was classically called. Nothing more.
To me, the Jew's relationship with Gd was meant to be expressed and developed in personal life, in private existence, in a grateful modeh ani upon rising and a pensive hamapil upon retiring to bed, in a berachah before eating and a dvar torah at the meal and birkat hamazon at the close, in giving tzedakah and speaking positively of others and giving terumah to the kohanim and maaser to the leviyyim, in planting trees and harvesting crops, in remembering yetziat mitzrayim and developing the land of Israel.
The synagogue was not meant to define my religious experience; it was a place for me to go for krias hatorah, for a minyan to do what a minyan does. And yes, it was male-dominated.
But this viewpoint is hard to swallow today, in a world which generally supports an ahistorical understanding of the synagogue: a community center (beit haknesset) and focal point for all manner of social organization.
Today, the synagogue has become the sum of so much of our Jewish life, and so it makes perfect sense that everyone would see it as part of their religious bailiwick. Of course everyone wants an equal role in synagogue ritual; I believe that many if not most are sincerely seeking inspiration and connection and a substantive role in building a strong religious community.
For the synagogue as people view it today, our current system is an offense to serious women, and the initiatives which my part of the Orthodox community offers to level the playing field only highlight the inequality and deepen the offense. Even the most "avant garde" - taking the Torah through the women's section, having women deliver divrei torah and so on - only underscore the fact that men are the ones to lein, receive aliyos and lead davening.
But to return to my view, the true synagogue is to Judaism what the showroom floor is to automobile manufacturing - an important element, but not where the car is made. It's a shiny space very much on display, but the production, the sale, the driving and the servicing take place elsewhere. And the result of the modern, altered perception of the synagogue is a disaster far beyond the issue of male/female; the result is a Jewish world which often leaves its religion at the door of the synagogue.
Or to use Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch's words, from Dayyan Grunfeld's introduction to Horeb (full credit to Rabbi Ezra Goldschmiedt for reminding me of this passage):
If I had the power I would provisionally close all synagogues for a hundred years. Do not tremble at the thought of it, Jewish heart. What would happen? Jews and Jewesses without synagogues, desiring to remain such, would be forced to concentrate on a Jewish life and a Jewish home. The Jewish officials connected with the synagogue would have to look to the only opportunity now open to them - to teach young and old how to live a Jewish life and how to build a Jewish home. All synagogues closed by Jewish hands would constitute the strongest protest against the abandonment of the Torah in home and life.
Imagine if we would do that... but I think it's really too late. Genies don't like to return to their bottles, and synagogues are not apt to lose their centrality. Further, such a move would likely have devastating results, certainly in North America; quite a few 20th century North American communities tried to create "Jewish Community Center"s which did not host religious ritual, and in many of those communities the experiment failed. Further, in my pulpit days I would not have wanted our synagogue to have lost its centrality; we accomplished a great deal of good for a great many people. Should I ever return to the pulpit, it would be to a community synagogue, not a dedicated prayer space.
So we have a synagogue that tries to be old-school mini-Temple as well as community center in a modern world, and it can't really do both without alienating people.
So I don't know what happens now.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Women in the Military
I'm presenting a session on "Women in the Military" on Wednesday night, Gd-willing. I want to look at the issue on a philosophical level, in terms of how modern feminism will address the issues that come up, and particularly the key problem of trying to change social constructs when you recognize their underlying validity. Here are the sources I plan to use:
Two
kinds of war
1.
Rambam, Sefer haMitzvot, Commandments 190-191
והמצוה
הק"צ היא המשפט שנתן לנו במלחמת שאר האומות והיא הנקראת (מתני' סוטה
ספ"ח סנה' ב א, כ ב) מלחמת הרשות...
והמצוה
הקצ"א היא שצונו שנמנה כהן שיוכיח לעם תוכחת המלחמה...
The 190th commandment is the law given to
us regarding wars with other nations; this is called "optional war"…
The 191st commandment is that He instructed us to appoint a kohen to
rebuke the nation regarding the war …
May women engage in"optional war"? Why / Why
not?
2.
Rambam, Introduction to his count of the mitzvot
וידוע
שאין הנשים דנות... ולא נלחמות במלחמת רשות
It is known that women do not judge… and do not fight
in optional wars.
3.
Talmud, Nazir 59a
רבי
אליעזר בן יעקב אומר מנין שלא תצא אשה בכלי זיין למלחמה ת"ל לא יהיה כלי גבר
על אשה ולא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה
R’ Eliezer ben Yaakov said: How do we know
that a woman may not go out to war with weapons? It is written, ‘The implements
of a man shall not be upon a woman.’
4.
Payam Akhavan, Beyond Impunity: Can International
Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities?, The American Journal of
International Law 95:7
Through systematic indoctrination and misinformation,
political leaders created an aberrant context of inverted morality in which
dehumanization and violence against members of the "enemy" group were
legitimized as purported acts of self-defence.
5.
H. Patricia Hynes, Military Sexual Abuse: A Greater
Menace Than Combat, Truthout
http://truth-out.org/news/item/6299:military-sexual-abuse-a-greater-menace-than-combat
Women
in the military are raped and sexually assaulted at significantly higher rates
than in civilian society. A 2003 study of women seeking health care through the
VA from the period of the Vietnam war through the first Gulf War found that
nearly 1 in 3 women was raped while serving - almost twice the rate of rape in
US society - and that 8 in 10 women had been sexually harassed during their
military service. Rates were consistent through all periods and wars studied.
Of those who reported having been raped, 37 percent were raped at least twice
and 14 percent were gang-raped.
What's
often overlooked in these statistics is that the reported prevalence of rape in
the military is based on a period of 2-6 years in military service, whereas the
sexual assault of women in civilian society (nearly 1 in 5) is based on
lifetime prevalence - signifying an even
more concentrated culture of sexual assault and a higher threat for
active-duty military women from fellow soldiers. A distinct pattern has emerged
from VA studies which reveals older and sometimes senior men rape younger and
more junior women, exposing the dominance motive in rape.
In
the spring of 2011, the Air Force released results from a survey of sexual
assault conducted by Gallup of nearly 20,000 male and female "airmen"
(sic). Nearly 1 in 5 women reported being sexually assaulted while in the
service, with most of the perpetrators being men in the Air Force.
6.
Proclamation
of 1953
http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5765/mishpotim/MSH65features.htm
"Since
we have already stated our position, daas Torah, regarding the draft of
girls, which is an accessory (avrizraihu) to one of the three cardinal
sins, the ruling of which is known that one must submit oneself to death rather
than transgress it, and since the government stands to institute a law
obligating Jewish daughters by force to present themselves for the draft of
civil national service outside the framework of the military, we therefore
publicly state our position and halachic ruling that this prohibition against
the mobilization of women refers also to Sherut Leumi in its full severity.
"We
appeal to all Jewish daughters and we obligate you by power of the Torah to
gather and stand up for your lives, to be an example for all of Jewry like
Chanah and her seven sons, and like the four hundred boys and girls who were
taken into captivity for shameful purposes and who cast themselves into the
sea, to oppose with all your might the kidnappers who have risen against you.
You are commanded hereby to choose to be imprisoned in jail and accept upon
yourselves to suffer poverty and suffering and thereby to sanctify the name of
Heaven, as it is written, `For Your sake have we been killed every day' (Gittin
57)."
7.
Talmud, Yevamot 65b
'ומלאו את הארץ וכבשוה' - איש דרכו לכבש ואין אשה
דרכה לכבש
'And fill the land and conquer
it' – A man's way is to conquer; it is not a woman's way to conquer.
8.
Talmud, Kiddushin 2b
דרכו
של איש לעשות מלחמה ואין דרכה של אשה לעשות מלחמה
It is the manner of a man to wage war; it is not the
manner of a woman to wage war.
9.
R' Tzvi Yehudah Kook on Yevamot 65b (printed in
footnote 124 to שיחות הרב צבי יהודה, פר' כי תצא)
שאין דרך רגילותה ומנהגה כך, ולא שהיא אסורה בזה בבחינת חק של תורה ומצוה,
אלא מצד טבעה והרגלה
This is not her normal conduct and custom. It is not
that she is prohibited by statute of Torah and commandment, but by her nature
and normal conduct.
10. Talmud, Yevamot 76b
'על אשר לא קדמו אתכם בלחם ובמים' - דרכו של איש לקדם
ולא דרכה של אשה לקדם
'Because they did not greet you
with bread and water' – It is the manner of a man to greet [strangers], it is
not the manner of a woman to greet.
11. Mishnah Shabbat 6:4
לא
יצא האיש לא בסייף ולא בקשת ולא בתריס ולא באלה ולא ברומח ואם יצא חייב חטאת רבי
אליעזר אומר תכשיטין הן לו וחכמים אומרים אינן אלא לגנאי שנאמר 'וכתתו חרבותם
לאתים וחניתותיהם למזמרות לא ישא גוי אל גוי חרב ולא ילמדו עוד מלחמה'
A man should not travel [on Shabbat, in a public area]
with a sword or bow or shield or lance or spear; should he do so, he would be liable
for a sin offering. R' Eliezer said: These are ornaments for him! The Sages
said: These are only disgraceful, as it is written, 'And they will beat their
swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks…'
The problem of "mitzvah wars" and other
precedents
12. Mishnah Sotah 8:7
במלחמת
מצוה הכל יוצאין אפילו (יואל ב') חתן מחדרו וכלה מחופתה
In mitzvah wars everyone
goes, even the groom from his room and the bride from her chuppah.
13. R' David ibn Abi Zimra
to Mishneh Torah, Hilchot, Melachim 7:4
וי"ל
דה"ק כיון דחתן יוצא מחדרו כלה יוצאה מחופתה שאינה נוהגת ימי חופה ואפשר
דבמלחמת מצוה הנשים היו מספקות מים ומזון לבעליהן וכן המנהג היום בערביות
One could suggest that he was saying that a groom
leaves his chamber and a bride leaves her chuppah, since they won't observe the
days of the chuppah. Or, perhaps, in a mitzvah war the women provide water and
food for their husbands, as is the custom today in Arab lands.
14. R' Tzvi Yehudah Kook, Letter
from 1977 (printed in footnote 128 to שיחות הרב צבי יהודה,
פר' כי תצא)
מפורש במשנה במסכת סוטה בפרק האחרון כי למלחמת מצוה הכל יוצאים, אפילו חתן
מחדרו וכלה מחופתה. וכן בהלכות מלכים ברמב"ם. אמנם הלכה כבתראי כרדב"ז.
It is explained in a mishnah in the last chapter of
Sotah that all go to a mitzvah war, even a groom from his chamber and a bride
from her chuppah. And so it is in the Rambam's Laws of Kings. However, the law
follows the latest authority, Radbaz.
15. Shoftim 4:8-10
(modified JPS translation)
וַיֹּאמֶר
אֵלֶיהָ בָּרָק אִם תֵּלְכִי עִמִּי וְהָלָכְתִּי וְאִם לֹא תֵלְכִי עִמִּי לֹא
אֵלֵךְ: וַתֹּאמֶר הָלֹךְ אֵלֵךְ עִמָּךְ אֶפֶס כִּי לֹא תִהְיֶה תִּפְאַרְתְּךָ
עַל הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ כִּי בְיַד אִשָּׁה יִמְכֹּר ד' אֶת סִיסְרָא
וַתָּקָם דְּבוֹרָה וַתֵּלֶךְ עִם בָּרָק קֶדְשָׁה: וַיַּזְעֵק בָּרָק אֶת
זְבוּלֻן וְאֶת נַפְתָּלִי קֶדְשָׁה וַיַּעַל בְּרַגְלָיו עֲשֶׂרֶת אַלְפֵי אִישׁ
וַתַּעַל עִמּוֹ דְּבוֹרָה:
And Barak said to her: If you will go with me then I will go; if you
will not go with me, I will not go.
And she said: I will surely go with you, but your glory will not come
from the path you travel. Gd will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman.
And Devorah arose and went with Barak, to Kadesh. And Barak alerted
Zevulun and Naftali to Kadesh, and ten thousand men ascended with him, and
Devorah ascended with him.
16. Rashi to Nazir 59a
וזה
שמצינו ביעל אשת חבר הקיני שלא הרגתו לסיסרא בכלי זיין אלא כמו שנאמר ידה ליתד
תשלחנה
As far as Yael, wife of Chever the Kenite, she did not
kill Sisera with a weapon; rather, as it is said, "She sent her hand to
the peg."
Is this a struggle for the sake of society, against
society?
17. Eetta Prince-Gibson, Religious Leaders Attack IDF
on the Gender Battlefield, Jerusalem Post Service, http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/15267/religious-leaders-attack-idf-on-the-gender-battlefield/
Moreover, said Rabbi Eliezer
Sadan, head of the pre-military yeshiva in Eli, placing women in combat units
violates their nature. "Women have wonderful qualities. It is their nature
to nurture and to produce life. The army is ugly and powerful, and war is
painful. We must protect women from the army. "In the War of Independence,
we had no choice and women had to serve. Today, thank Gd, we have a choice, so
we must not teach women to kill. It will damage their souls."
Chazan, a Meretz member,
responded angrily: "Who are you to decide that? Let every woman decide
what her nature is!"
18. Erin Solaro, An
Unabashed Feminist Writes About Women in the Military, http://www.pbs.org/pov/regardingwar/conversations/women-and-war/introductions-an-unabashed-feminist-writes-about-women-in-the-military.php
I am an overt and unabashed
feminist: I believe women have the same civic and human worth men do. Part of
that worth is the right — and the responsibility — to bear arms in the common
defense (of which military service is only one part). We — women — live here
too, and we are equal in all things, not just the good things of civilization.
The military is also an important part of society: at its best, it is the
honorable profession of arms. It is utterly imperative that women be part of
it. It is our military, our society, our world, and the outcome of this odd,
utterly real, botched-beyond-belief war we are fighting with radical
fundamentalist Islam is important to us… Then there is the simple fact that if
women are marginalized in the military and defense and foreign policy, so are
our needs, our experiences and perspectives. That women, like men, are
individuals neither changes the fact that there are specifically female needs,
experiences, and perspectives nor the reality that when half the population is
systematically excluded from and marginalized in an institution — any
institution — that institution is necessarily warped. And that is a bad thing:
for society, the institution and for women in general.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Women’s Section
[This week’s Haveil Havalim is here]
One of the classic design challenges for Orthodox synagogues is the matter of the Women’s Section – how to create a space which welcomes and encourages davening, while excluding some of the key components of the shul’s real estate (shulchan, aron) and dealing with the reality that the great majority of Orthodox attendees are men.
Mechitzah design is its own complex issue, of course, but trying to design a good davening area for women by focussing on the mechitzah would be like trying to design a hockey rink by focussing on the placement of the red and blue lines. The lines are important, but it’s the ice that really matters, folks - and in the decades since balconies ceased to the norm, the ice has often been ignored.
I’ve been troubled by this challenge for decades. I once interviewed at a shul which was in the midst of an expansion, and at the grilling I was asked if I had any thoughts on the design they had chosen. I told them I felt their planned layout, which had the women’s section at the back of the shul, should be changed to put the women side-by-side with the men. (I received a standing ovation, I kid you not, but I decided not to continue in the interview process for other reasons.)
Having a choice of shuls and minyanim here in Toronto has heightened my sensitivity to the issue, and to the possibilities – positive and negative.
Of course, you may not particularly want women to come daven in your shul. You may feel that inviting women to shul is inappropriate, since it might lead them to want to lead davening next. If so, this post is not for you. But if you feel that our wives should feel like shul is theirs as well, and if you feel that our daughters need encouragement in their davening, then please consider the following ten suggestions for those designing sanctuaries today:
1. Make it permanent. Aside from the halachic problems with converting a space from men’s use to women’s use and back again [see Minchas Yitzchak 7:8 and Tzitz Eliezer 9:11 and 12:14 for starters], nothing is as discouraging as showing up in shul only to have people create ad hoc space just for you. )This is often an issue in daily-minyan rooms.)
2. Don’t let it become a coatroom, or a shortcut, or an ad hoc spillover section/talking section for men. It’s up to the rabbi and gabbaim to enforce this, but proper layout can help.
3. Keep the section well-lit. If a bulb goes out, don’t let it ride, saying, “We don’t have too many women who come here to daven, anyway.”
4. Similar to #3, make sure the climate control system works well on their side. In particular, check that the women aren’t directly beneath vents; that tends to happen in shuls where the women’s sections line the sides of the shul.
5. Make sure they have siddur and chumash shelves in their area so that they won’t need to ask the men to send them sefarim. And make sure the men’s siddur and chumash shelves are not in the women’s area, as well.
6. Put the women’s area near the front, for reasons of both acoustics and overall feel. Of course, this may necessitate a higher mechitzah, depending on certain halachic issues, but my sense is that a few more inches and placement up-front is preferred over a shorter divider and seating in the back.
7. Design the acoustics to ensure that the davening, Torah reading and haftorah are fully audible in the women’s section.
8. If your shul has a noisy hallway, make sure women have a choice of seating further from the door. Some may want to be near the door to have access to their children or to a quick exit, but not everyone wants to pray to the sweet sounds of squabbling children and the kiddush club.
9. Share the furniture. If your men’s section has comfortable chairs, tables and shtenders, so does your women’s section.
10. Make sure it’s populated. It’s a big turnoff for my daughters, and very uncomfortable for them, if they are the only women present in shul.
Women: Am I off-base here? What would you change, and what would you add to this list?
One of the classic design challenges for Orthodox synagogues is the matter of the Women’s Section – how to create a space which welcomes and encourages davening, while excluding some of the key components of the shul’s real estate (shulchan, aron) and dealing with the reality that the great majority of Orthodox attendees are men.
Mechitzah design is its own complex issue, of course, but trying to design a good davening area for women by focussing on the mechitzah would be like trying to design a hockey rink by focussing on the placement of the red and blue lines. The lines are important, but it’s the ice that really matters, folks - and in the decades since balconies ceased to the norm, the ice has often been ignored.
I’ve been troubled by this challenge for decades. I once interviewed at a shul which was in the midst of an expansion, and at the grilling I was asked if I had any thoughts on the design they had chosen. I told them I felt their planned layout, which had the women’s section at the back of the shul, should be changed to put the women side-by-side with the men. (I received a standing ovation, I kid you not, but I decided not to continue in the interview process for other reasons.)
Having a choice of shuls and minyanim here in Toronto has heightened my sensitivity to the issue, and to the possibilities – positive and negative.
Of course, you may not particularly want women to come daven in your shul. You may feel that inviting women to shul is inappropriate, since it might lead them to want to lead davening next. If so, this post is not for you. But if you feel that our wives should feel like shul is theirs as well, and if you feel that our daughters need encouragement in their davening, then please consider the following ten suggestions for those designing sanctuaries today:
1. Make it permanent. Aside from the halachic problems with converting a space from men’s use to women’s use and back again [see Minchas Yitzchak 7:8 and Tzitz Eliezer 9:11 and 12:14 for starters], nothing is as discouraging as showing up in shul only to have people create ad hoc space just for you. )This is often an issue in daily-minyan rooms.)
2. Don’t let it become a coatroom, or a shortcut, or an ad hoc spillover section/talking section for men. It’s up to the rabbi and gabbaim to enforce this, but proper layout can help.
3. Keep the section well-lit. If a bulb goes out, don’t let it ride, saying, “We don’t have too many women who come here to daven, anyway.”
4. Similar to #3, make sure the climate control system works well on their side. In particular, check that the women aren’t directly beneath vents; that tends to happen in shuls where the women’s sections line the sides of the shul.
5. Make sure they have siddur and chumash shelves in their area so that they won’t need to ask the men to send them sefarim. And make sure the men’s siddur and chumash shelves are not in the women’s area, as well.
6. Put the women’s area near the front, for reasons of both acoustics and overall feel. Of course, this may necessitate a higher mechitzah, depending on certain halachic issues, but my sense is that a few more inches and placement up-front is preferred over a shorter divider and seating in the back.
7. Design the acoustics to ensure that the davening, Torah reading and haftorah are fully audible in the women’s section.
8. If your shul has a noisy hallway, make sure women have a choice of seating further from the door. Some may want to be near the door to have access to their children or to a quick exit, but not everyone wants to pray to the sweet sounds of squabbling children and the kiddush club.
9. Share the furniture. If your men’s section has comfortable chairs, tables and shtenders, so does your women’s section.
10. Make sure it’s populated. It’s a big turnoff for my daughters, and very uncomfortable for them, if they are the only women present in shul.
Women: Am I off-base here? What would you change, and what would you add to this list?
Thursday, April 29, 2010
“Rabbi, I think you’re a feminist!”
A few weeks ago I delivered a shiur on the role of women in settling then-Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, linking it to the midrashic (and later) praise of the women who emerged from Egypt and entered Canaan.
As part of that shiur, I re-capped the history of the female-founded institutions of that early modern age: The Women Workers Council, WIZO, Federation of Hebrew Women, the Sejera Collective, Women’s Organization for Cultural Work in Palestine, Kinneret Women’s Farm and so on. I contended that the pro-Israel tendencies of the women who emerged from Egypt were the spiritual forebears of those pro-Israel tendencies in modern women, even if the religious expressions of the different generations varied.
I also discussed the saga of women’s suffrage in that era, the debate as to whether the right to vote was a matter of halachah at all, and the ultimate resolution of that debate.
Afterward, a woman commented to me, “Rabbi, I think you’re a feminist!”
That conversation came to mind this morning, when I heard two (male) radio commentators discussing whether girls should be permitted to play on boys’ high school sports teams. They argued that should girls migrate to the boys’ team, that would perpetuate the inferior quality of girls’ sports and keep more girls from developing their talents. Better to keep the girls on the girls’ teams, and so elevate the level of their league’s play.
I was uncomfortable with this argument. I do think high school teams should be separate, but my arguments are about sexuality, not about the level of competition. The argument of “elevate the girls’ league” sounds like (1) wishful thinking, and (2) ex post facto rationalization by people who want to keep them gurlz out, rather than reasoned argument.
It kind of reminds me of the weaker arguments against ordaining women. There are substantive issues - tzniut, for example - but too often the debate is on less-substantive grounds.
Re: Sports - If the central decisive debate is really between the communal benefit of the girls’ league and individual benefit in a more competitive forum, I’d say to stop meddling. Let the girls play in the greatest forum for which they qualify, and quit the fence-building and social engineering. Do we force 55-year-olds to play in senior leagues in order to elevate the quality of senior play, or do we allow them to play in whatever league will take them?
So does that make me a feminist?
As part of that shiur, I re-capped the history of the female-founded institutions of that early modern age: The Women Workers Council, WIZO, Federation of Hebrew Women, the Sejera Collective, Women’s Organization for Cultural Work in Palestine, Kinneret Women’s Farm and so on. I contended that the pro-Israel tendencies of the women who emerged from Egypt were the spiritual forebears of those pro-Israel tendencies in modern women, even if the religious expressions of the different generations varied.
I also discussed the saga of women’s suffrage in that era, the debate as to whether the right to vote was a matter of halachah at all, and the ultimate resolution of that debate.
Afterward, a woman commented to me, “Rabbi, I think you’re a feminist!”
That conversation came to mind this morning, when I heard two (male) radio commentators discussing whether girls should be permitted to play on boys’ high school sports teams. They argued that should girls migrate to the boys’ team, that would perpetuate the inferior quality of girls’ sports and keep more girls from developing their talents. Better to keep the girls on the girls’ teams, and so elevate the level of their league’s play.
I was uncomfortable with this argument. I do think high school teams should be separate, but my arguments are about sexuality, not about the level of competition. The argument of “elevate the girls’ league” sounds like (1) wishful thinking, and (2) ex post facto rationalization by people who want to keep them gurlz out, rather than reasoned argument.
It kind of reminds me of the weaker arguments against ordaining women. There are substantive issues - tzniut, for example - but too often the debate is on less-substantive grounds.
Re: Sports - If the central decisive debate is really between the communal benefit of the girls’ league and individual benefit in a more competitive forum, I’d say to stop meddling. Let the girls play in the greatest forum for which they qualify, and quit the fence-building and social engineering. Do we force 55-year-olds to play in senior leagues in order to elevate the quality of senior play, or do we allow them to play in whatever league will take them?
So does that make me a feminist?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Sexing of Judaism's Founders
[This week's Toronto Torah is here!]
Last week (Shmot 3:15), HaShem told Moshe to tell the Jewish nation, in language forceful and stirring, “The Gd of your ancestors – the Gd of Avraham, the Gd of Yitzchak, the Gd of Yaakov – has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is the way I will be identified from generation to generation.”
Beyond the oratory, this declaration shaped one of the most controversial berachot in Judaism, the opening berachah of the Amidah. Because Gd self-identifies as “Gd of Avraham, Gd of Yitzchak, Gd of Yaakov,” and because it is in the context of salvation – as is the opening berachah of the Amidah – and because Gd says, “This is the way I will be identified from generation to generation,” that initial berachah identifies Gd as “Gd of Avraham, Gd of Yitzchak, Gd of Yaakov,” to the exclusion of every other leader, male or female, in Jewish history. [See also Pesachim 117b for a related explanation.]
But would that it were this easy.
Already in talmudic times, the gemara [Sanhedrin 107a] wonders why Dovid haMelech was excluded, and today, of course, in a decision meant to promote women’s identification with the davening, various movements have developed alternative versions to include the Matriarchs.
Overlooking the deliberate snubbing of the biblical source for that berachah’s text, I am still disturbed by the implicit suggestion that Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov belong on one side of the mechitzah, and Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah are property of the women’s section. Do we really want to teach our children to emulate only those biblical figures who share their chromosomes? And where does that dichotomy leave people of more vague sexual identity?
Part of the problem is, indeed, a product of feminism, in which women are encouraged to seek out other women for strength and solidarity. This is the same culture that has produced my Rebbetzin's pet peeve: “Women’s Issues” shiurim in Judaism. Is Judaism not one giant women’s issue, as it is one giant men's issue?
But part of the problem is more native to Jewish tradition itself. The reality is that teachers of Judaism have long identified the Matriarchs with women and the Patriarchs with men, holding up each as role models for his/her gender.
Examples:
Sarah - Bava Metzia 87a uses Bereishit 18:9 to teach that women, specifically, should be private in their conduct.
Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov – Yoma 28b talks about Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov as “elders, sitting in study,” and noticeably mentions no women.
And, of course, the story of Adam and Chavah and the Tree of Knowledge is used to teach lessons about the characeristics and responsibilities of men and women.
So, addressing the traditionalists [among whom I am numbered], I must point out: If we are to insist that “Gd of Avraham, Gd of Yitzchak, Gd of Yaakov” is an appropriate invocation for both of women, then we must obligate ourselves to make sure that our children will see these Patriarchs not only as models for men, but as property of all Jews alike.
Last week (Shmot 3:15), HaShem told Moshe to tell the Jewish nation, in language forceful and stirring, “The Gd of your ancestors – the Gd of Avraham, the Gd of Yitzchak, the Gd of Yaakov – has sent me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is the way I will be identified from generation to generation.”
Beyond the oratory, this declaration shaped one of the most controversial berachot in Judaism, the opening berachah of the Amidah. Because Gd self-identifies as “Gd of Avraham, Gd of Yitzchak, Gd of Yaakov,” and because it is in the context of salvation – as is the opening berachah of the Amidah – and because Gd says, “This is the way I will be identified from generation to generation,” that initial berachah identifies Gd as “Gd of Avraham, Gd of Yitzchak, Gd of Yaakov,” to the exclusion of every other leader, male or female, in Jewish history. [See also Pesachim 117b for a related explanation.]
But would that it were this easy.
Already in talmudic times, the gemara [Sanhedrin 107a] wonders why Dovid haMelech was excluded, and today, of course, in a decision meant to promote women’s identification with the davening, various movements have developed alternative versions to include the Matriarchs.
Overlooking the deliberate snubbing of the biblical source for that berachah’s text, I am still disturbed by the implicit suggestion that Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov belong on one side of the mechitzah, and Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Leah are property of the women’s section. Do we really want to teach our children to emulate only those biblical figures who share their chromosomes? And where does that dichotomy leave people of more vague sexual identity?
Part of the problem is, indeed, a product of feminism, in which women are encouraged to seek out other women for strength and solidarity. This is the same culture that has produced my Rebbetzin's pet peeve: “Women’s Issues” shiurim in Judaism. Is Judaism not one giant women’s issue, as it is one giant men's issue?
But part of the problem is more native to Jewish tradition itself. The reality is that teachers of Judaism have long identified the Matriarchs with women and the Patriarchs with men, holding up each as role models for his/her gender.
Examples:
Sarah - Bava Metzia 87a uses Bereishit 18:9 to teach that women, specifically, should be private in their conduct.
Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov – Yoma 28b talks about Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov as “elders, sitting in study,” and noticeably mentions no women.
And, of course, the story of Adam and Chavah and the Tree of Knowledge is used to teach lessons about the characeristics and responsibilities of men and women.
So, addressing the traditionalists [among whom I am numbered], I must point out: If we are to insist that “Gd of Avraham, Gd of Yitzchak, Gd of Yaakov” is an appropriate invocation for both of women, then we must obligate ourselves to make sure that our children will see these Patriarchs not only as models for men, but as property of all Jews alike.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
