Egalitarianism in Judaism and the Role of Women

[Karimarie]

Referencing this thread, the suggestion was made to perhaps open up a new thread on the subject of Jewish egalitarianism and the role of women in the scope of Judaism.

I'd like to discuss the subjects regarding the exemption of women from saying the Shema, putting on kippot, tallitot and tefillin, and the not counting of women for a minyan.


Subject I: Shema Yisrael

Berakhot 3:3
"Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the recital of the Shema and from tefillin, but are duty bound to observe the Amidah, Mezuzah and the Grace after Meals. "

It does not, however, provide an explanation for this. Why are women exempt from the recital of the Shema? The explanation given by the Rabbis is that women are exempt from mitzvot that are associated with a certain timeframe. That answer, however, begs two more questions: Why are women exempt from those mitzvot? Moreover, why are women not also exempt from the Amidah, which is to be said three times a day according to Halakha, at the times specified in Berakhot 4:1?


Subject II: Minyan

We read in the Mishnah (Berakhot 7:2) that 'Women must nuot be included when saying Grace after Meals.' This refers to the halakha that women are not counted in a minyan. So... Why not?

[dauer]

I think first it's important to acknowledge that Judaism is largely a patriarchal religion shaped by men. But I don't think that means the texts are going to be anti-woman.

The explanation given by the Rabbis is that women are exempt from mitzvot that are associated with a certain timeframe. That answer, however, begs two more questions: Why are women exempt from those mitzvot?

I think the traditional answer is because women are often obligated to duties that are less time structured, like watching children and such (I could be wrong.) I would suggest a few others.

The Enochites were a group who tried to create a 360 day calendar, divided into perfectly even months, with all of the holidays falling perfectly. In the pseudepigraphical book of Enoch, both women and the moon are dumped on. What is the reason for this? Well, both women and the moon have independent cycles. The Enochites were trying to completely structure time, so it would be entirely predictable, in need of no leap days, months, adjustments, etc, with all the holidays following on the same day of each month every year, etc. They really didn't like the organicity, the kind that the moon presented, and that women also presented. Why were women a problem? I think because of taharat hamishpachah. It wasn't something they could fit onto their schedule, just like the moon. So maybe there's also a reference to that organicity here in the ruling about time bound mitzvot.

The other thing, if you look at Torah and the way women operate in the Torah, they operate more organically, in a less structured way, a more rule-breaking way, to get things done. Like if you look at the way Rebecca deals with Isaac to get Jacob his blessing. She may have been commanded by God, but she still went about it in a more organic way, instead of a straightforward way. Or if you think about the midwives who don't do as Pharoah commands. Or the way Eve acts, when you look at her behavior as being a positive thing, as it helped get us out of an Edenic childhood.

Moreover, why are women not also exempt from the Amidah, which is to be said three times a day according to Halakha, at the times specified in Berakhot 4:1?

That's answered in the gemara. Berachot 20b explains it's because it's a request for mercy. Although I have a footnote that says there's another version of the gemara that says it's obvious, and that might mean it's because it's not bound by time, based on the context of the surrounding passages. EDITED TO ADD: Sorry, I left out, this is if we understand it that d'oraita tefillah's not bound by time, and d'rabbanan it is.

Why are women exempt from those mitzvot?

I think the clearest answer is that it's a patriarchy, but I also think that there are more nuanced answers that can come in different situations.

We read in the Mishnah (Berakhot 7:2) that 'Women must nuot be included when saying Grace after Meals.' This refers to the halakha that women are not counted in a minyan. So... Why not?

I think that not counting women is probably better understood as an example of the patriarchy coming into play. A rabbi once explained to me that the use of a mechitzah year round was actually a fence, because it was originally only used at one time during the year, on a holiday when matches were made, or something similar to that. If that is the case, then men and women were mixing and there is really no reason not to count women. There is actually one other reason I can think of, which is that it is possible a woman could be niddah, and for this reason perhaps she would be excluded. But considering the drashy way Hazal played with halachah, if this was the reason and there weren't patriarchal motivations, they could have surely gotten around it.

Dauer

[dauer]

Saw this article on a woman leading a traditional shul. Thought it would make for some relevant reading, possible conversation starting, attached to this thread:

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/ne...p3?artid=12867

It doesn't mention the two soferets (I know of two, but there could be more) in existence.

EDIT: And this is the bio of Dina Najman from Kehilat Orach Eliezer's website:

http://www.koe.org/DinaNajmanBio.htm

Dauer

[bananabrain]

firstly, cheers for the link, dauer. i'm really pleased to see this happening. about bloody time too.

Berakhot 3:3
"Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the recital of the Shema and from tefillin, but are duty bound to observe the Amidah, Mezuzah and the Grace after Meals."

ok - i'm not really qualified to discuss the process by which the halakhah moves from this mishnah to practical yes/no answers. however, there are a number of points to note:

1. the text says "are exempt from". not "are prohibited from". it just means that they are not obliged to do this at set times. there is absolutely no reason why a woman cannot recite the shem'a and put on tefillin, but nor can we argue that she should be prevented from doing so. likewise, if we talk about tallit, the tallit is a NON-GENDER-SPECIFIC garment. it is unisex and thus does not come under the rules for women not wearing men's clothing and vice-versa. so, we can therefore conclude that a woman, should she feel inclined to do so, may don a tallit and tefillin in the morning and recite the shem'a. however, the requisite blessings refer to the obligations to do so and, as the obligation does not exist, the blessings are not required.

2. in practical terms, whether we like this or not, the framework of halakhic obligation assumes that women get married, have babies and become responsible for a household. we should note, however, that women (unlike men) are OBLIGED to do NONE of these things if they do not wish it. men are obliged to get married and make babies and a living. the outcome of all this is that women are assumed to need to be available for their children at any given time. naturally, we can also conclude that if a woman is unmarried, childless or otherwise free from immediate responsibility for childcare, she is free to carry out these procedures and, indeed, this is the case for many women i know.

3. i believe that the issue with the 'amidah arises because one is not allowed to interrupt during it, move or even look at anything other than a siddur. this is not compatible with a small person demanding your attention. men get round this by pissing off to a minyan and therefore not being in the house for the kid to distract you.

4. as far as timings are concerned, as dauer has explained (i think) the amidah is, as a petitionary set of personal prayers, d'rabbanan, unlike the shem'a which is d'oraita and hence time-bound.

5. putting up a mezuzah is not a time-bound thing, because you do it only when you move into a house, so obviously this is something that is binding on women too, as well as being d'oraita. i believe the reason this is included is because the commandment of mezuzah is included in the shem'a.

Subject II: Minyan

We read in the Mishnah (Berakhot 7:2) that 'Women must not be included when saying Grace after Meals.' This refers to the halakha that women are not counted in a minyan. So... Why not?

although this is correct in terms of a minyan, zimun for birkat hamazon is a different matter. actually, the halakhah is quite clear that women are obliged in zimun for grace after meals. in other words, if you've got two men and three women, a woman leads zimun. in the case of three men and three women, i can't remember - you could have two zimuns, but i think in the end the halakhah comes down on the men's side (surprise, surprise). however, the reason this is being pointed out is so that you wouldn't think that because women are obliged in a zimun headcount for women only, they'd be included in a mixed headcount or a minyan headcount when they're not obliged to make up a minyan. if a certain blessing refers to an obligation that is binding on the men, but not the women in the minyan, it doesn't make sense that the women can enable the men to fulfil their obligations of praying in a minyan of ten.

i assume, by the way, that you are not arguing from the point of view of obligation, because once you start down that road and accept the obligation model, it becomes very hard to argue from a reform PoV, because the halakhah doesn't have the same binding authority. the way i was taught it in the reform it was all about eliminating any distinction or discrimination between men and women, all fair enough and praiseworthy as an object, but then the women wanted to go off and form women's groups, so the men felt that they needed to go off and form men's groups in order to be equal. now, OK, that's all very well, but why can't one consider a minyan like a sort of proto-men's group? works for me.

incidentally, i don't think one can maintain my position and not also agree that women's tefillah groups are OK. they're just not a minyan, because a minyan is an obligation. it doesn't make the tefillah any less important or effective or praiseworthy (rather more so) but it isn't more obligatory. moreover, it goes without saying that to prevent women from reading the Torah and forming tefillah groups is entirely without halakhic foundation.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

1. the text says "are exempt from". not "are prohibited from".

Correct. It is a fact that some rabbis have interpreted it to be a prohibition (hence why some more traditional shuls frown upon a woman putting on a kipah), but that is an interpretation not actually rooted in the text.

The issue that I'm asking is not whether or not its a prohibition, but why the exemption?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

3. i believe that the issue with the 'amidah arises because one is not allowed to interrupt during it, move or even look at anything other than a siddur. this is not compatible with a small person demanding your attention. men get round this by pissing off to a minyan and therefore not being in the house for the kid to distract you.

The thing is, women are still required to recite the Amidah. And both men and women are required even if there isn't a minyan present. (Even if there isn't another Jew within 1000 kilometers, it's still required, per Berakhot 4:7.)

Originally Posted by bananabrain

4. as far as timings are concerned, as dauer has explained (i think) the amidah is, as a petitionary set of personal prayers, d'rabbanan, unlike the shem'a which is d'oraita and hence time-bound.

The Mishnah *does* specify specific times for Shacharit, Mincha, Ma'ariv and Musaf (in Berakhot (4:1), something it also does for both the morning Shema and evening Shema (in Berakhot 1:1-1:2).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i assume, by the way, that you are not arguing from the point of view of obligation, because once you start down that road and accept the obligation model, it becomes very hard to argue from a reform PoV, because the halakhah doesn't have the same binding authority.

Well, I consider halakha to be valuable... I guess that makes me more inclined to Conservative, although the Conservative movement is something I need more knowledge of at large.

[pohaikawahine]

I'm not knowledgable enough about Judiasm to enter into this dialogue, but I'm still learning and find this thread very fascinating. There is a woman Rabbi at the synagogue near my home and I'm going to save this discussion to share with her.... aloha nui, poh

[bananabrain]

Correct. It is a fact that some rabbis have interpreted it to be a prohibition (hence why some more traditional shuls frown upon a woman putting on a kipah), but that is an interpretation not actually rooted in the text.

agreed. as for a woman putting on a kipah, i am not sure whether this is classed as male clothing or not, or whether it's neutral like tallit and tefillin. you may know, incidentally, that there are sources which describe women wearing tefillin, among them king saul's daughter/david's wife michal and the daughters of rashi. in any case, a married woman should have have her head covered and i don't see how a kipah falls foul of this - rather the opposite.

The issue that I'm asking is not whether or not its a prohibition, but why the exemption?

because it's unreasonable and unworkable to expect it to be an obligation and this discussion must start from the first principle that it is trying to clarify who is obliged to do what and when, not who is prohibited from what and when. furthermore, many if not all of the sages wore their tefillin all day and in a context like that, when you consider that tefillin must not be worn in a lavatorial environment, it makes it a bit difficult to clean or change a baby, particularly if you are liable to get pooed or weed on, hence the exemption. at least that's my practical PoV. what we both agree on is that turning it into a prohibition is not what was intended.

The thing is, women are still required to recite the Amidah. And both men and women are required even if there isn't a minyan present. (Even if there isn't another Jew within 1000 kilometers, it's still required, per Berakhot 4:7.)

but berakhot is not the last word on the subject. just as the mishnah sometimes feels free to overrule the Torah and the gemara the mishnah, later authorities may have ruled against this. i can try and find the references if you like.

The Mishnah *does* specify specific times for Shacharit, Mincha, Ma'ariv and Musaf (in Berakhot (4:1), something it also does for both the morning Shema and evening Shema (in Berakhot 1:1-1:2).

yes, but it's clarifying what those specific times are. if you are exempt from observing specific times, clearly those cannot always apply.

Well, I consider halakha to be valuable... I guess that makes me more inclined to Conservative, although the Conservative movement is something I need more knowledge of at large.

you certainly sound more inclined towards being conservative than reform to me. in any case, as i understand it, there are very left-wing and very right-wing conservatives, particularly in the US. dauer may be in a better position than me to help you with conservative positions, although i have certainly passed through the conservative system on my journey...

if you haven't yet read it, i advise you to get hold of a copy of blu greenberg's "on women and judaism". it's the standard text on this issue. check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu_Greenberg

i've met both blu and her husband yitz and both are eminently sensible people, the sort of people who are in very short supply these days, that prove you can be both sensible, critical, rational and traditionally orthodox.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

agreed. as for a woman putting on a kipah, i am not sure whether this is classed as male clothing or not, or whether it's neutral like tallit and tefillin. you may know, incidentally, that there are sources which describe women wearing tefillin, among them king saul's daughter/david's wife michal and the daughters of rashi. in any case, a married woman should have have her head covered and i don't see how a kipah falls foul of this - rather the opposite.

I know of cases where women have worn tefillin--It's not a forbidden practice pers se, though the problem that seems to often rear its head is people sometimes take 'exemption' as a 'you should not do this', which it isn't.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

but berakhot is not the last word on the subject. just as the mishnah sometimes feels free to overrule the Torah and the gemara the mishnah, later authorities may have ruled against this. i can try and find the references if you like.

I wouldn't be asking questions if I did not personally have the interest of learning, so yes, please find the references in later sources and post them. What I'm currently studying the moment is the Mishnah, so I'm not making a concerted look at the later texts. I figure that if one is to learn Jewish law, the Mishnah, as the first text of it, would be the most logical place to start.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you certainly sound more inclined towards being conservative than reform to me.

I don't think Reform is particularly bad in reference to Conservative... Which is to say that I don't see it as an illegitimate form of Judaism (though I'm not a Jew, so my view might be skewed) so much as a nontraditional path. Rejection of Halakha was something the Karaites did too--Personally, since both Karaism and Reform are both aiming for greater understanding of Torah, they're still forms of Judaism, but one might be able to make an argument that without Halakha they're making it harder on themselves than it needs to be.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

in any case, as i understand it, there are very left-wing and very right-wing conservatives, particularly in the US.

This is correct. Personally, from what I know of it, I'd say I like Jacob Neusner's ideas with regards to a positioning within the Conservative movement. He's left-wing, but Conservative and one of the most brilliant Talmud experts living.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

dauer may be in a better position than me to help you with conservative positions, although i have certainly passed through the conservative system on my journey...

He suggested I read Emet Ve-Emunah, the Statement of Principles of Conservaitve Judaism. I've read about half of it so far and find that I agree with what's written.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

if you haven't yet read it, i advise you to get hold of a copy of blu greenberg's "on women and judaism". it's the standard text on this issue. check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu_Greenberg

No, I have not read yet. I'll look for a copy of it.

[dauer]

I don't think Reform is particularly bad in reference to Conservative..

The right wing Reform and the left wing Conservatives, you actually can't really tell them apart. Same goes pretty much for right wing C and MO, besides the egalitarianism and maybe tznius. Speaking of which, there's a C book that's sorta like a C Code by R. Isaac Klein, and imo every observant or semi-observant liberal Jewish family should have a copy, and every MO family should at least look through it. It's called A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice.

There's a lot of movement in Reform back towards more of the tradition that was earlier rejected because that's what most people want now. "Classical Reform" is dying out.

As someone planning on conversion, right now you're more concerned with the denominational stuff. But once you've converted, once you jump in the pool, you'll probably eventually get the sense that it's all water. There may be a deep and shallow end, but there are also people who go to the deep end and sit on their inflatables, which prevents them from getting immersed in Yiddishkeit. There are also people who like to hang out in the shallow end and sit on the bottom.

Anyway, within the next, maybe even 20 years, I think the denominational structure is going to change a bit. Not for better or for worse, just different. There are people in C demanding continued progressive rulings, but there are also people in C who think less progressively than the progressive O Jews on some issues. If a rift happens in C (or another, I don't really count UTJ since they're so small EDITED TO ADD: Forgot about Recon) that could have some effect both on R and the MO on the left.

[bananabrain]

the problem that seems to often rear its head is people sometimes take 'exemption' as a 'you should not do this', which it isn't.

as one of my friends puts it, we are now in 'violent agreement'.

yes, please find the references in later sources and post them.

will do my best.

I figure that if one is to learn Jewish law, the Mishnah, as the first text of it, would be the most logical place to start.

i came to the same conclusion - the mishnah is the first place you start to be able to trace how we get from Torah to halakhah as defined today. i'm actually using neusner's translation of the mishnah because it is the most literal (although i still try and work from the original hebrew whenever possible) and well-structured in terms of preserving the flow and sense. have you met him then? wowee. he's a bit of a hero of mine. i always see the development of jewish law rather like this:

Torah: "no work on Shabbat and that includes your donkey"

mishnah: "loading donkeys up comes under forbidden work, so does loading camels, horses, dogs and slaves, according to rabbi ploni"

gemara: "rav was once loading up his donkey and shmuel came up and kicked him. when asked why, he said rav would never be able to unload it by sundown. rav replied that this was the practice of his master but that he personally didn't recommend everyone to try it."

midrash: "rav's donkey once bit him. rav said 'what did you do that for?' and the donkey replied: 'because of the bad press my auntie got in the balaam story."

sa'adia ga'on: "the karaites won't even touch a donkey on friday, because they reject the Oral Law, what a bunch of thickies."

ramba"m: "donkeys may be loaded up to the third hour before Shabbat candle-lighting."

ramba"n: "except that donkeys may also represent the drudgery of everyday life."

abulafia: "the gematria of 'donkey' is the same as the gematria of 'nostril', so you should stand on one leg and breathe through one nostril whilst visualising the Divine Name."

ariza"l: "and by so doing, one may unify the upper worlds of donkey and load."

shulhan aruch: "pets as well as domestic animals are muktzeh on Shabbat."

ba'al shem tov: "the man who overloads his donkey will be distracted from his devekut when the poor animal gets tired. and that'll make a really nice story...."

classical reform: "except we don't have to worry about that any more because we don't have donkeys in hamburg and, besides, what would the christians think? far better to donate money to the animal shelter."

chatam sofer: "we should all buy donkeys because the reform think it's acceptable to use this newfangled train thingie."

mishnah berurah: "and wear black hats while we're doing so."

i could go on but i think you get the general idea.

dauer - i love this swimming pool metaphor. personally, i do lengths, although i am most happy being just about able to touch the bottom with my toes if my head is under water.

b'shalom

bananabrain