The Sacred Feminine

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

How many Partzufim are there? I had thought it was just five or six.

a partzuf is just a configuration of the sefirot, so really there are any number. the main ones are as previously stated, but once you start to consider the sefirot within sefirot and the dynamic evolution thereof as part of the Divine Creation process it gets terribly, terribly complicated and is really only suitable for the advanced student.

Originally Posted by Raksha

I truly hope you aren't the kind of person I call a "Gatekeeper," i.e. a self-appointed guardian of the mysteries, because we're going to have problems if you are. There is nothing I despise more than a Gatekeeper, no form of human life lower than a self-appointed spiritual nanny who takes it upon himself to determine who may enter the inner sanctum and who may not.

i understand your reaction. sometimes i may come across as a bit like this, but really i'm just trying to get people to study a bit and not discount what the traditional approaches say (note the plural) before becoming familiar with them.

As you see, I entered the inner sanctum a long time ago. I didn't need your permission then and I don't now either!

which is part of the reason that it's a bit pointless trying to be a "gatekeeper" in this age of hyperabundant information - however, i am sure you understand the difference between mere information, knowledge and wisdom. and please don't take this the wrong way, but you could, i am sure, read and to some extent understand a technical manual on brain surgery, but it don't make you (or me) a brain surgeon. i'm not saying this to dump on anyone, but there are levels here and i don't claim to be an "initiate", much less a "mekubal". have you heard of the "nazir"? he was a great yerushalmi mekubal and he taught my teacher. he used to lock up his nigla books, but leave his nistar (mystical) books open for anyone to read. the point is that someone can leave an MRI machine lying about, but it doesn't mean i know how to use it.

the good news of course is that there's kabbalah and kabbalah. lighting shabbat candles is one of the most mystical acts one can undertake if one understands the inner dimension. it's not all about doing advanced abulafian ecstatic letter meditation and fasting, or studying the ar"i's "unification of the left inner nostril" (yes, it does exist!). there are levels.

"Receptive" is a much better descriptive word for Binah than "passive."

you're right, i posted that too fast, thank you for pointing it out.

I think you're being a little too hard on Westcott and the rest of the Golden Dawn types. I first got interested in Kabbalah in the mid-1960s when there was very little material available in English, and virtually NOTHING from Jewish sources.

gershon scholem published quite a lot earlier than that, i believe. look, i'm not dumping on the GD, i've got a lot of time for the WMT; i just find it a little too forced into the theoretical and universal by virtue of needing to not be too jewish and allow room for a christian cosmology and, of course, i don't find that terribly credible. once you add in stuff like tarot and the egyptian "godforms" or enochian tablets it all starts to disappear up its own fundament a bit in its effort to be all things to all people whilst still being essentially an elite activity like all mystical pathwork.

And you can blame that entirely on the despicable and shortsighted Gatekeepers within our own tradition!

harrumph. firstly, it's not anyone's job to democratise kabbalah for reasons of which we are both well aware, look at the kabbalah centre for a start. secondly, regardless of what you may think, advanced study can be quite damaging if you try to grow leaves without having your roots in the ground of a jewish lifestyle and indeed a qualified teacher. with that said, i think many of the traditional experts are far too restrictive in almost all respects. people want to learn - the good news is that in a post-kaplan age, we all have a right to at least know this stuff exists. in fact, the ba'al sulam, one of the greatest hasidic mekubalim of the C20th, said (and i've read this directly) that
if you can't go down the Talmud path, it's obligatory to study the "direct" path. the problem of kabbalah needs to be understood within the context of the enlightenment and most of all of shabbetai tzvi.

Can you really imagine them allowing a "shiksa" Reform Jewish female like me into the inner sanctum?

they don't let *anyone* in, not, you, not me, not anyone who's not from th yeshiva world. it's a bigger problem than just kabbalah as you ought to know. i don't use words like that and i don't like other people using them either. of course you don't need my permission for anything. i'd rather you asked the questions than not.

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

The designation "moon" does not refer to the physical luminary but to a spiritual sphere.

it still doesn't have anything to do with how we see G!D. i'm sorry we're getting in the way of your cosy little system. i'm not really interested in your insistence that you know what we're praying for and to better than we do, you lot have long worn out my patience with your longwinded essays, so that goes straight in the box marked "arrogant longwinded theosophical nonsense", as it would if you told me jesus kept popping up in the book of genesis or muhammad was prophesied in isaiah.

Originally Posted by Raksha

I think I meant two things at the same time by the phrase "the inner sanctum." The first one would be the esoteric aspect of any religion, such as Kabbalah in Judaism. Occasionally I would run into people on the Judaism board I frequented on another forum who would always make a point of warning me that I could hurt myself or even kill myself by getting into Kabbalah if I didn't know what I was doing.

there are unfortunately a lot of idiots who like to parrot the party line even when it doesn't make sense. it doesn't mean you couldn't hurt yourself by playing with some of the serious stuff. i know people it has happened to. as for the inner sanctum, i don't think more than 30-40 people in the whole world get to play there. if you read rambam's "guide for the perplexed", it's inside the "castle", in the "presence of the king".

Also, I got the feeling that the mostly Orthodox bluenoses who issued these warnings didn't actually know that much (if anything) more than I did, and were just repeating what they had heard from someone else. It all seemed kind of superstitious to me, as though the intent were to scare me off for no good reason.

there are a whole lot of people who love to make out how they've got the inside track and orthodox jews are no exception. your point about supersition and bluenoses is well made. and, frankly, new agers, neo-pagans, occultists, theosophists and just about everyone else cannot resist the temptation to play the superiority card from time to time.

Women of course were systematically excluded in virtually all religions until fairly recently, and even now that this is starting to break down it's still a very big issue with me.

and me, although i don't think that removing the differences between men and women will help in the long term, rather it will, as it has done in liberal denominations, cause its own issues. equality need not mean homogeneity. and, yes, i'm aware that's an excuse not to do anything for most people but i am very much in favour of women's tefillah groups, women rabbis (for those who want them) women teachers (especially for those who don't want them) and female experts in halakhah, like the lindenbaum programme for taharat hamishpacha. however, we will always need rules and structure; i am not a religious anarchist; nor are hermetists.

There is no concept of "the Logos" in Judaism, for one thing. That's a Greek philosophical concept--which is not to put down on it in any way, but I don't see anything "Jewish" about it.

er, there are jewish equivalents of these concepts. come across the "primordial Torah"?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Raksha]

If Judaism is your birth religion, perhaps you might recognize the wisdom in Ezekiel 18.

Seattlegal,

I read it, and I assure you I have never considered individual Catholics responsible for the sins of the Church. However, I DO NOT, nor am I under any obligation to, accept the Roman Catholic Church at its own self-evaluation, particularly the doctrine that says the Church cannot sin, or that the Church never teaches error--and we'll even leave out the theological disaster known as "papal infallibility."

I happen to know that the Church has taught error, has taught hatred and bigotry, and is more than any other institution responsible for the systemic propagation of anti-Semitism that finally culminated in the Holocaust. That was a big part of the motivation behind Vatican II. And yet even Pope John Paul II's long-awaited "apology" didn't go far enough (although it was better than nothing).

He apologized on behalf of "some Catholics" who had propagated anti-Semitism, knowing perfectly well that some of those Catholics were popes. If the popes can speak "infallibly" for the whole Church when pronouncing official doctrine, why couldn't JPII apologize on behalf of the Church for its long list of sins committed against the Jews?

Of course I don't HAVE to forgive the Church (and probably won't) even if that should happen. But I might begin to think about it. But until it does, any question of forgiveness is out of the question. But the apology must be on behalf of the institution itself, the Roman Catholic Church, or it doesn't count. And I know they will never do that, because then they would have to give up their claim that the Church is sinless and without error.

The only time I ever consider ordinary kindhearted, non-bigoted Catholics responsible for the historic anti-Semitism of the RCC is when they attempt to excuse and rationalize it. As I said, when they do that they make themselves accomplices after the fact.

--Linda

[Raksha]

although i don't think that removing the differences between men and women will help in the long term, rather it will, as it has done in liberal denominations, cause its own issues. equality need not mean homogeneity.

BB,

This is the only part of your post where you really talked down to me, and I want you to know I appreciate the effort you made not to do it in the rest of your post. But really, at this point you should know better than to talk to any feminist about "homogeneity," because that's a flat-out DATED argument. I'll even go further than that. Saying things like "equality need not equal homogeneity" instantly identifies you as a sexist, because that should go without saying. You should really know better than that.

Homogeneity is impossible because men and women are NOT the same, but they are far more alike than they are different. I never forget that I am a human being FIRST, before I'm female or Jewish or whatever. I am more like a male of my own species than a female of any other species. And yet I don't have to make any conscious effort to be "feminine" or avoid homogeneity, because I don't see it as a danger or even a possibility. Whatever differences naturally exist between men and women will manifest on their own as they always have.

Also, it's for ME to define what is the nature of being female...NOT YOU or any other male! I have believed for a long time that the freedom to define one's self and not be defined by others is the basis for all other freedoms. For too long men have had it ALL--they have made "authoritative" pronouncements on what it means to be male AND what it means to be female--and of course what it means to be human, period.

Sorry (not really) but you don't get to do that any more. I claimed my right of self-definition a long time ago.

Aside from that, I see that you really did make an effort not to talk down to me, and you succeeded most of the time except for what I just talked about. I appreciate all the thought and effort that went into your post, and hopefully I can respond to the rest of the points you raised later on.

b'shalom,
Linda

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Raksha

Seattlegal,

I read it, and I assure you I have never considered individual Catholics responsible for the sins of the Church. However, I DO NOT, nor am I under any obligation to, accept the Roman Catholic Church at its own self-evaluation, particularly the doctrine that says the Church cannot sin, or that the Church never teaches error--and we'll even leave out the theological disaster known as "papal infallibility."

I happen to know that the Church has taught error, has taught hatred and bigotry, and is more than any other institution responsible for the systemic propagation of anti-Semitism that finally culminated in the Holocaust. That was a big part of the motivation behind Vatican II. And yet even Pope John Paul II's long-awaited "apology" didn't go far enough (although it was better than nothing).

He apologized on behalf of "some Catholics" who had propagated anti-Semitism, knowing perfectly well that some of those Catholics were popes. If the popes can speak "infallibly" for the whole Church when pronouncing official doctrine, why couldn't JPII apologize on behalf of the Church for its long list of sins committed against the Jews?

Of course I don't HAVE to forgive the Church (and probably won't) even if that should happen. But I might begin to think about it. But until it does, any question of forgiveness is out of the question. But the apology must be on behalf of the institution itself, the Roman Catholic Church, or it doesn't count. And I know they will never do that, because then they would have to give up their claim that the Church is sinless and without error.

The only time I ever consider ordinary kindhearted, non-bigoted Catholics responsible for the historic anti-Semitism of the RCC is when they attempt to excuse and rationalize it. As I said, when they do that they make themselves accomplices after the fact.

--Linda

Fair enough.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Raksha

This is the only part of your post where you really talked down to me, and I want you to know I appreciate the effort you made not to do it in the rest of your post. But really, at this point you should know better than to talk to any feminist about "homogeneity," because that's a flat-out DATED argument. I'll even go further than that. Saying things like "equality need not equal homogeneity" instantly identifies you as a sexist, because that should go without saying. You should really know better than that.

linda,

i could point out that you appear perfectly happy with my opinions as long as they do not appear to contradict your own! suffice it to say, though, that i'm not in a position to talk down to you, nor would i wish to so do. the field of religious feminism is not one in which i am an expert beyond a cursory familiarity with some of the more forward thinking people in of judaism. it sounds like i've unintentionally pressed a button for you. it may be a "dated" argument to you, but i can assure you that if you expect, as a feminist, to get your point across to people who want to give you a sympathetic hearing you will need to avoid refighting the last war, in which i was not involved. i don't see why i should "know better", nor do i see why you instantly need to throw a label like "sexist" at me when you have no idea about how i feel about this sort of thing - it's terribly patronising. i'll go further. it seems to me that "public religion", by which i mean synagogue and so on, was designed at least in judaism around men at least in part as a single-sex environment. i don't especially object to mixed davening, but it's not for me, nor do i see why i should be forced to take part in it. i don't come round to womens' groups and demand to be included. there is a place for gender segregation and for myself at least, formal tefillah is one place for it, no different from changing rooms at the gym. but, as i've pointed out, that does *not* signify that i think women should be prevented from engaging in formal tefillah, any more than i think men should be prevented from caring and nurturing roles in the home.

I never forget that I am a human being FIRST, before I'm female or Jewish or whatever.

you see, this is the sort of well-meaning liberal statement that actually makes very little sense to me. as if our identities are so clearly delineated! this is exactly the sort of convenient get-out-of-jail-free card which enables people to avoid a commitment to an integrated system like halakhah. being a human being is not in conflict with being a man or being a jew and to suggest otherwise is to set up an false dichotomy. for myself, i intend to have this particular cake and eat it too.

And yet I don't have to make any conscious effort to be "feminine" or avoid homogeneity, because I don't see it as a danger or even a possibility. Whatever differences naturally exist between men and women will manifest on their own as they always have.

look, i'm not defining anything for you; of course we all have freedom to define ourselves - i'm not making authoritative pronouncements on how things are or not, i'm not a prophet. it seems to me that you're picking a fight with someone other than myself, but don't let me get in the way of that.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[China Cat Sunflower]

Thanks for the info on the Partzufim, BB. Sounds like one of those "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" kind of things.

I'm trying to study Lurianic Kabbalah. Are you familiar with Leonora Leet? If so, would you consider her a reputable source? I'm trying to avoid the foo, if you know what I mean.

Chris

[bananabrain]

hi chris,

the partzufim are one of the most complex and subtle parts of lurianic kabbalah, but yes, angels on a pin is quite relevant. i would recommend that if you're intending to study that sort of stuff you investigate the writings of r. aryeh kaplan. remember that it's really intended to be studied and practiced within an observant jewish lifestyle. of course i'm talking about jewish kabbalah here, although if you're trying to study it in the WMT then it sounds to me like leonora leet is as good as any - albeit when anyone starts trying to "reconstruct" what they did in the Temple they really ought to investigate the traditional sources first and foremost, otherwise you're going to end up with a lot of speculation. however, i haven't read her books so i'm not going to comment further. you may like to investigate rawn clark who seems fairly knowledgeable about the WMT. the people to avoid, if you ask me, are the bergs.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[China Cat Sunflower]

Thanks BB, especially for the reading recommendations.

My interest in the WMT, and really kabbalah in general, is focused mainly toward understanding how metaphysical structures and archetypes are expressed in symbols through time. It's really not a faith based thing as I have no real interest in ceremonialism, divination, or magic in the physical sense. And I'm pretty realistic about my own limitations when studying the Jewish end. I'm not Jewish, and I'm not devoting my life to the study of Torah or mysticism in that sense. There's only so far that I'm going to be able to go in understanding the thing, and that's fine. I'm a tourist in that sense, not an ascetic, so I don't kid myself that I'll ever be on a par with Jewish intellectuals or metaphysicians. And like I say, I'm mostly interested in looking at the archetypal and metaphysical structures in order to compare and contrast between the two traditions. I don't expect them to neatly overlay each other. I intend to combine that information with other observations about geometric archetypes, the mathematics of music theory, Pythagorean stuff, and things like that.

Chris

[Raksha]

BB,

I guess you think I was too hard on you, but it now appears I wasn't nearly hard enough! I spent quite a long time on a reply to part of your post, but then lost it when I was trying to post it. I hope the same thing doesn't happen with this note, which is really just a "place-holder" note.

I would like to say though (if I can manage to get this posted) that I don't NEED a "get out of jail free card" because I don't consider myself under any obligation to observe any aspect of halakhah whatsoever, regardless of whether you consider it an "integrated system" or not. If I do observe it--or if I choose to identify myself as Jewish at all, when it comes right down to it--that is strictly on *MY* terms, and on my terms ONLY.

As I said on the other board, I sweat blood for my Jewish identity, which means nobody can ever lock me into it...and nobody can ever lock me out of it either. Which also means I am no more in need of your approval than you are of mine.

--Linda

[Raksha]

if you expect, as a feminist, to get your point across to people who want to give you a sympathetic hearing you will need to avoid refighting the last war, in which i was not involved.

BB,

If I had been a little more awake when I read your last post I would have taken note of the red-flag remarks about "women rabbis (for those who want them)" and so on. As I said on the other board, it wasn't clear to me at first how much of a traditionalist you really are, and in a Jewish context a traditionalist is a sexist by definition. There is no such thing as "separate but equal" in ANY context, but especially not in traditional Judaism which is the great-granddaddy of all patriarchal religions. So I'm not going to apologize for calling you a sexist, although I was when I first started reading your note.

I would not expect a sympathetic hearing for the feminist POV from a Jewish traditionalist even if I were being less confrontational, so for me there's no advantage in not being confrontational. Granted, you are clearly very knowledgeable, and it's been a long time since I've run into an intelligent conservative in ANY area, either politics or religion. I almost forgot they existed! But other than book recommendations (maybe) there is absolutely nothing I need or want from you, and above all--ABOVE ALL!--neither your permission nor your approval for my feminism, my eclecticism or anything else whatsoever. I know I said that earlier about Gatekeeper types in general, but now I'm saying it to you personally.

It just so happens that I take the sexism in Judaism very personally. I loathe it with a deeply familiar, deeply personal loathing I've been able to understand, let alone explain. It's almost as though I were brought up Orthodox and were in active rebellion against it...but I WASN'T! I was raised in the most liberal branch of Judaism for that time and place (the early 1960s).

Even so, when I read things like, "He who teaches his daughter Torah teaches her obscenity" I feel such rage I feel like throwing things, or better yet hitting someone. But even better than hitting someone is KNOWING that you need me more than I need you. Because I hold the future in my hands...NOT YOU! If all Jewish women felt the way I did, your male-dominated religion wouldn't last another generation, and you know it and I know it.

i don't see why i should "know better", nor do i see why you instantly need to throw a label like "sexist" at me when you have no idea about how i feel about this sort of thing - it's terribly patronising.

I threw the sexist label at you because it fits, even better than I realized when I posted my earlier note which you quoted. Obviously I was giving you too much credit when I said, "You should know better." You used the same motheaten argument every other sexist uses when they claim that "women want to be the same as men." That's simply another red flag I should have picked up on but didn't.

i'll go further. it seems to me that "public religion", by which i mean synagogue and so on, was designed at least in judaism around men at least in part as a single-sex environment.

At least you're willing to admit that "Judaism is a man's religion." I put that in quotes because it isn't original with me. I first read it in The Jew in the Lotus by Rodger Kamanetz. In case you're not familiar with that book, it's an account of the visit a delegation of rabbis and other Jewish leaders made to the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala (India). Part of it focuses on the JUBUs (Jewish Buddhists) both in Daramsala and in America. It also deals with the role of women in Judaism, and the closely related idea of the Sacred Feminine.

i don't especially object to mixed davening, but it's not for me, nor do i see why i should be forced to take part in it.

No reason whatsoever! But just the very fact that you'd feel "forced" to take part in what I grew up taking for granted is what labels you a sexist in my book. So if Judaism is a man's religion and you want to keep it that way, then obviously there is nothing in it for me, or at least there would be if your brand of Judaism were the only game in town. If it were, I'd be elsewhere as I was for so many years, and as I still am whenever I feel like it.

i don't come round to womens' groups and demand to be included.

I've discovered there is an immense difference in segregated environments. It makes a big difference between whether you are BEING excluded or whether you are actively DOING the excluding. BEING excluded is disempowering, as Jewish women were disempowered, marginalized and denigrated for centuries. PLEASE don't

there is a place for gender segregation and for myself at least, formal tefillah is one place for it, no different from changing rooms at the gym. but, as i've pointed out, that does *not* signify that i think women should be prevented from engaging in formal tefillah, any more than i think men should be prevented from caring and nurturing roles in the home.

[Raksha]

if you expect, as a feminist, to get your point across to people who want to give you a sympathetic hearing you will need to avoid refighting the last war, in which i was not involved.

BB,

If I had been a little more awake when I read your last post I would have taken note of the red-flag remarks about "women rabbis (for those who want them)" and so on. As I said on the other board, it wasn't clear to me at first how much of a traditionalist you really are, and in a Jewish context a traditionalist is a sexist by definition. There is no such thing as "separate but equal" in ANY context, but especially not in traditional Judaism which is the great-granddaddy of all patriarchal religions. So I'm not going to apologize for calling you a sexist, although I was going to when I first started reading your note. But then I read further and thought better of it.

I would not expect a sympathetic hearing for the feminist POV from a Jewish traditionalist even if I were being less confrontational, so for me there's no advantage in not being confrontational. Granted, you are clearly very knowledgeable, and it's been a long time since I've run into an intelligent conservative in ANY area, either politics or religion. I almost forgot they existed! But other than book recommendations (maybe) there is absolutely nothing I need or want from you, and above all--ABOVE ALL!--neither your permission nor your approval for my feminism, my eclecticism or anything else whatsoever. I know I said that earlier about Gatekeeper types in general, but now I'm saying it to you personally.

It just so happens that I take the sexism in Judaism very personally. I loathe it with a deeply familiar, deeply personal loathing I've been able to understand, let alone explain. It's almost as though I were brought up Orthodox and were in active rebellion against it...but I WASN'T! I was raised in the most liberal branch of Judaism for that time and place (the early 1960s).

Even so, when I read things like, "He who teaches his daughter Torah teaches her obscenity" I feel such rage I feel like throwing things, or better yet hitting someone. But even better than hitting someone is KNOWING that you need me more than I need you. Because I hold the future in my hands...NOT YOU! If all Jewish women felt the way I did, your male-dominated religion wouldn't last another generation, and you know it and I know it.

i don't see why i should "know better", nor do i see why you instantly need to throw a label like "sexist" at me when you have no idea about how i feel about this sort of thing - it's terribly patronising.

I threw the sexist label at you because it fits even better than I realized when I posted my earlier note which you quoted. Obviously I was giving you too much credit when I said, "You should know better." You used the same motheaten argument every other sexist uses when they claim that "women want to be the same as men." That's simply another red flag I should have picked up on but didn't.

i'll go further. it seems to me that "public religion", by which i mean synagogue and so on, was designed at least in judaism around men at least in part as a single-sex environment.

At least you're willing to admit that "Judaism is a man's religion." I put that in quotes because it isn't original with me. I first read it in The Jew in the Lotus by Rodger Kamanetz. In case you're not familiar with that book, it's an account of the visit a delegation of rabbis and other Jewish leaders made to the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala (India). Part of it focuses on the JUBUs (Jewish Buddhists) both in Daramsala and in America. It also deals with the role of women in Judaism, and the closely related idea of the Sacred Feminine.

i don't especially object to mixed davening, but it's not for me, nor do i see why i should be forced to take part in it.

No reason whatsoever! But just the very fact that you'd feel "forced" to take part in what I grew up taking for granted is what labels you a sexist in my book. So if Judaism is a man's religion and you want to keep it that way, then obviously there is nothing in it for me, or at least there wouldn't be if your brand of Judaism were the only game in town. If it were, I'd be elsewhere as I was for so many years, and as I still am whenever I feel like it.

Just remember that whenever you try to lay down the law, when you tell someone, "This is the way it is, this is the way it's going to be, like it or lump it" you are giving that person a choice. They can lump it, and very often they do just that!

I assure you I would never dream of polluting an Orthodox shul with my feminine presence. In fact, you couldn't pay me to do it! I vowed when I was eighteen years old that I would never set foot in a synagogue with a mechitza, and I'm proud to say I have kept that oath to this day.

i don't come round to womens' groups and demand to be included.

There is all the difference in the world between whether you are the party BEING excluded, or whether you are actively DOING the excluding. BEING excluded is disempowering, and that's exactly the position Jewish women were in for thousands of years, and still are in some circles (the ones you obviously prefer). They were not the excluders but the excluded, meaning they were excluded for the sources of power and authority and knowledge.

Some men do resent it when women become the excluders, and form all-female groups that aren't open to men. But that's almost always a very temporary situation for the specific purpose of empowerment, like some workshops I've attended. I've never heard of any religious movement founded by a woman that excluded men on a permanent basis, except for Dianic Wicca. Certainly Reclaiming (Starhawk's group) doesn't exclude anyone on the basis of gender or race or sexual orientation.

there is a place for gender segregation and for myself at least, formal tefillah is one place for it, no different from changing rooms at the gym.

WHAAAT??? That's the most bizarre analogy I've ever heard! I can't even feel offended by that (not yet, anyway) because it's just too WEIRD.

as i've pointed out, that does *not* signify that i think women should be prevented from engaging in formal tefillah

Well, that's big of you, isn't it? I suppose in your preferred environment, as long as the women are being excluded anyway, they might as well form tefilah groups of their own. I'm just very glad I'm not one of those women.

any more than i think men should be prevented from caring and nurturing roles in the home.

"Prevented"? In male-dominated religions, men neither have nor WANT much involvement in "caring and nurturing roles" like child-rearing unless their wives are in the hospital. Even liberal women complain (justifiably) about how little their husbands help them in that area, but in a patrarchal environment that isn't the man's role, not even on a part-time basis.

That's another thing I'm grateful for--that I never have and never will play the "handmaid" role to any system that relegates me to second-class status. I say that if the men want to run everything...fine, but that means EVERYTHING! Not just leading the Seder but making the matzo balls and the charoset and the WHOLE bit! And day after day, week after week and year after year. Then you can tell me what you think about "separate but equal."

--Linda

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Raksha

I would like to say though...that I don't NEED a "get out of jail free card" because I don't consider myself under any obligation to observe any aspect of halakhah whatsoever, regardless of whether you consider it an "integrated system" or not. If I do observe it--or if I choose to identify myself as Jewish at all, when it comes right down to it--that is strictly on *MY* terms, and on my terms ONLY.

because of the operation of human free-will, anythine we do is by definition on our own terms. people are free to dissent at any time, as the sages say: "everything is in the hands of Heaven, except the awe of Heaven itself" - in other words, nobody can *make* you believe, or do *anything* religiously speaking, of which you are no doubt aware. fine. so am i. the "yoke of the commandments" is something one can be sensible of and observant of, or either, or neither. either it is the case or it isn't. but judaism is a religion of responsibility and also a means of community; that, in itself, confers obligation. you are of course under no compunction to observe anything - and, of course, if you never have to do anything but on your *own* terms then you are luckier than most of us! however, you must surely concede that at some point the label of "judaism" or "jewish" loses all meaning if utterly divorced from its normative connotations. it's what i call the "bacon bagel" conundrum. by analogy, surely there comes a point where a christianity without reference to jesus, the gospels, church, G!D or the traditional festivals is unrecognisable qua christianity. so it is with judaism.

in a Jewish context a traditionalist is a sexist by definition

what a helpful position that is, to be sure. in that case the term pretty much ceases to have any meaning, because it fails to distinguish between men like myself who, usually, are considered to comprehend the issues and consequently get on pretty well with feminists - and the sort of men who would fail to even register anything that doesn't come out of a yeshiva. that's about as reasonable as treating all criticism of israel as anti-semitic.

There is no such thing as "separate but equal" in ANY context, but especially not in traditional Judaism which is the great-granddaddy of all patriarchal religions.

something tells me you're not exactly open to debate on this point. what on earth is the point of dialogue, then, exactly?

I would not expect a sympathetic hearing for the feminist POV from a Jewish traditionalist even if I were being less confrontational

well, how about that there's no such thing as "THE feminist PoV" any more than there's such a mythical beast as "THE traditional jewish PoV"? seems to me like you're quitting before you even start.

It just so happens that I take the sexism in Judaism very personally. I loathe it with a deeply familiar, deeply personal loathing I've been able to understand, let alone explain. It's almost as though I were brought up Orthodox and were in active rebellion against it...but I WASN'T! I was raised in the most liberal branch of Judaism for that time and place (the early 1960s).

personally, i try to understand before i condemn. at least you are admitting you're not being entirely rational.

Even so, when I read things like, "He who teaches his daughter Torah teaches her obscenity" I feel such rage I feel like throwing things, or better yet hitting someone.

strange as it may seem, the gemara states a number of things that are not the easiest to make sense of. not everything that is said translates into practical application. not everything that is said is a halakhic opinion, binding, valid, correct. the gemara includes hearsay, speculation, argument and a great deal of opinion, both pleasant and unpleasant, progressive and hidebound. what you are doing there is eavesdropping on one sentence in a 2000-year-old conversation. do you think traditional women are somehow unaware of the things that move you to such anger?

But even better than hitting someone is KNOWING that you need me more than I need you. Because I hold the future in my hands...NOT YOU! If all Jewish women felt the way I did, your male-dominated religion wouldn't last another generation, and you know it and I know it.

er...OK. however, i think judaism's survived more scary things than feminism in the last couple of millennia. and i don't actually think the two need necessarily be in conflict, unless of course you want to be confrontational about it. personally, i'm here because i like dialogue and diplomacy. why are *you* here?

You used the same motheaten argument every other sexist uses when they claim that "women want to be the same as men."

er... no i didn't. why don't you try asking me what i think instead of telling me you already know?

At least you're willing to admit that "Judaism is a man's religion."

that's not what i'm saying at all. i'm saying that *public ceremonial religion* is generally for men. and i also said that i didn't have a problem with women doing public ceremonial religion if they want to.

But just the very fact that you'd feel "forced" to take part in what I grew up taking for granted is what labels you a sexist in my book.

can you not even see how intolerant that PoV actually is? i also grew up taking mixed prayer for granted and, on reflection, soberly and without malice, i prefer to do these things separately, sorry if that bothers you. and, yes, i've read "the jew in the lotus"; i liked it very much and have studied with some of those rabbis. i study with anyone that i can learn from. a couple of weeks ago i studied with rabbi steve greenberg, the protagonist of the film "trembling before G!D" and the author of "wrestling with G!D and men", the most prominent gay orthodox rabbi. he's not nearly as angry as you are, so i learned a lot.

It makes a big difference between whether you are BEING excluded or whether you are actively DOING the excluding. BEING excluded is disempowering, as Jewish women were disempowered, marginalized and denigrated for centuries.

strange as this may seem, jewish men are not exactly strangers to being disempowered, marginalised and denigrated. i'm not completely unaware of history. yet many of us seem to have come through into the modern age without an attitude like a rhino with a toothache.

Some men do resent it when women become the excluders, and form all-female groups that aren't open to men. But that's almost always a very temporary situation for the specific purpose of empowerment, like some workshops I've attended.

i quite frankly don't see the difference between these workshops and a single-sex prayer minyan. perhaps you're not giving any credence to the "empowerment" that comes to those of us who participate in them. exclusion is, to my way of thinking, a point of view - and it seems to me that it takes two people to cause offence; one to give and one to take.

I assure you I would never dream of polluting an Orthodox shul with my feminine presence. In fact, you couldn't pay me to do it! I vowed when I was eighteen years old that I would never set foot in a synagogue with a mechitza, and I'm proud to say I have kept that oath to this day.

well, i'm sure that balances up all those proud orthodox fanatics that vow they will never set foot in reform shuls, or share a platform with reform rabbis, or all the rest of that nonsense. it's just what religion needs - more people convinced that they alone are in possession of the Truth and the One And Only Correct Way.

"Prevented"? In male-dominated religions, men neither have nor WANT much involvement in "caring and nurturing roles" like child-rearing unless their wives are in the hospital. Even liberal women complain (justifiably) about how little their husbands help them in that area, but in a patrarchal environment that isn't the man's role, not even on a part-time basis.

well, i'm happy to tell you that my community and circle of friends isn't a bit like that. it sounds like you've been surrounded by the most awful bunch of uncultured neanderthals. "male-dominated" or not, all the fathers i know do plenty of caring and nurturing, from sharing the bottle-feeding and nappy-changing on.

I say that if the men want to run everything...fine, but that means EVERYTHING! Not just leading the Seder but making the matzo balls and the charoset and the WHOLE bit! And day after day, week after week and year after year. Then you can tell me what you think about "separate but equal."

when mrs bb tells me she's knackered and pregnant and tells me i'm going to do the cooking, i damn well do it. i don't know anyone who would argue with that. perhaps feminism has, in fact, already won this particular battle; that's why i suggested i wasn't involved in it; perhaps we have your generation to thank for that, but we've certainly learned that particular lesson. however, there's no need to continue visiting the sins of my forefathers on me!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Raksha]

the "yoke of the commandments" is something one can be sensible of and observant of, or either, or neither. either it is the case or it isn't.

BB,

There’s another alternative: picking and choosing which commandments to follow and which ones to ignore. It isn’t necessary to see halakhah as “an integrated system.” Also, I don’t agree with the often-repeated argument that “tradition has the force of law.” That’s just a cop-out in favor of the status quo, whatever it might be. Tradition does not have the force of law!

judaism is a religion of responsibility and also a means of community; that, in itself, confers obligation.

I agree, but it’s the same thing with community as with the commandments. I can also choose which community or communities to affiliate with. In RL I don’t have much of a choice at present—it’s the Reform temple down the street or nothing! Fortunately, it IS Reform and it’s actually within walking distance, so I definitely lucked out in my last-minute choice of residence. I am more limited than most in that I don’t have transportation, but I still have an unlimited choice of virtual communities. Well, almost unlimited. I was reading Dauer’s posts explaining what Second Life is, and I’m not sure my antiquated computer can handle that. It isn’t an insurmountable problem for the future, though.

if you never have to do anything but on your *own* terms then you are luckier than most of us!

I’m NOT lucky in most ways and I’ve done very little in my life on my own terms, but where exactly I fit into the Jewish scheme of things (and I believe I do, somewhere) is more important to me than most other things. So that’s one area where I’m not open to compromise. Even the Hasidim are unanimous on that score: “God needs you for the meaning in your life.” I forget exactly who said that but I’ve always identified with it.

in that case the term [sexist] pretty much ceases to have any meaning, because it fails to distinguish between men like myself who, usually, are considered to comprehend the issues and consequently get on pretty well with feminists - and the sort of men who would fail to even register anything that doesn't come out of a yeshiva.

I’m aware that there’s a difference between what are now called the “Modern Orthodox” and the ultra-Orthodox, and also quite a bit of friction between them. My sister lived in Israel for years before her death in 1984 (she’s buried on the Mount of Olives), and she told me those right-wing Mea Shearim fanatics have to be seen to be believed! So yeah, I can understand where you’d resent being compared with those lunatics—who wouldn’t? But even though the Modern Orthodox brand of sexism isn’t as virulent doesn’t mean it isn’t still sexism.

not everything that is said translates into practical application. not everything that is said is a halakhic opinion, binding, valid, correct. the gemara includes hearsay, speculation, argument and a great deal of opinion, both pleasant and unpleasant, progressive and hidebound. what you are doing there is eavesdropping on one sentence in a 2000-year-old conversation.

That’s true. In fact, thanks for reminding me that a lot of the Talmud is simply opinion, not halakhah. As problematic as some of the statements about women are, the ones about foreigners and “Avodah Zara” are even worse. Just the fact that they are there and can be quoted makes them convenient ammunition for the anti-Semites. Of course nobody takes those statements literally these days except for the ultra-right religious Zionist whackos, but they are a major shonda in themselves, if you know what I mean.

i think judaism's survived more scary things than feminism in the last couple of millennia. and i don't actually think the two need necessarily be in conflict, unless of course you want to be confrontational about it.

Yes, but those scary things were threats from the outside. Our people have an absolute genius for survival unmatched by any other people on earth—I’ll definitely give ‘em that! It still amazes me every time I think about it. But from within Judaism itself, probably nothing has challenged it like feminism since the beginning of the Reform movement in the 1830s (I think). Because everything is so much in flux now, it’s impossible to make any final assessment, but it could result in an even more revolutionary change than that.
For example: You mentioned Asherah in another post as a forerunner of the fully developed kabbalistic concept of the Shekhinah. You can’t bring that up without admitting that the image, or description, of the Shekhinah (I’m not really comfortable calling it a “concept”) had a long period of development and didn’t just spring up full-blown from out of nowhere. What if it should turn out that Asherah was never strictly a Canaanite goddess as alleged, and that her role as the “consort” of God was deliberately suppressed during the talmudic period? What if as many texts as possible were re-written or (more likely) deliberately censored to make it appear that there had never been anything like Goddess worship in Judaism, or at least no Goddess worship that wasn’t a strictly foreign “abomination”? In that case some people have a LOT of ‘splainin’ to do! Fortunately (for them), most of them are anonymous and long dead, so they won’t be subjected to any personal embarrassment on that score.

personally, i'm here because i like dialogue and diplomacy. why are *you* here?

Because I’m looking for my private gate. Personally, I believe there are more than 70 of them. I think I even read somewhere that there is one for every letter of the Torah! And when I find it, there better NOT be any self-important gatekeepers trying to block the entrance—not that it would do them any good.

You used the same motheaten argument every other sexist uses when they claim that "women want to be the same as men."

er... no i didn't. why don't you try asking me what i think instead of telling me you already know?

I was paraphrasing what you said in an earlier note. Here it is again:
<