Book review (plus my usual 2 cents): Equality Lost, by Rabbi Yehuda Henkin
(Thanks to Dilbert for recommending this book.)
Equality Lost: Essays in Torah Commentary, Halacha, and Jewish Thought, by Rabbi Yehuda Henkin, is a good news/bad news book.
Good news: Chava/Eve ate from the tree because Adam showed her zilzul, disrespect, by not telling her its name, as G-d had told him, whereas the serpent did tell her the tree's name ("the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.") "Man and woman were created equal, but from the first he related to her as an inferior; by doing so he caused her to stumble and the result was that she caused him to stumble." (Page 19.) For once, we women don't get blamed.
Good news: According to Rabbi Henkin, halachah (Jewish religious law) allows a woman to say kaddish and birkat hagomel (a blessing thanking Hashem when one survives a dangerous situation) from the women's section in the presence of a minyan.
Good news: Women may read Megillat Esther (the Scroll [of the Book of] Esther) for other women.
Bad news: Women may not read Megillat Esther, Torah, or Birkat haMazon (Grace After Meals) for men. Reasons? (1) Kol ishah (the prohibition against a man hearing a woman sing, because a woman's singing voice is the functional equivalent of her nakedness). (2) Zila beho milta , it is dishonorable for (a woman to help) the many (fulfill their obligation—there are some opinions that a woman may not read even for other women). (3) And/or it's "dishonorable for men to have women enable them to fulfill their obligation." (Kavod hatzibbur, round 4,568. Sigh.)
I just love statements such as this one (quoth she sarcastically): "women are equally obligated, but nevertheless may not read for men." (Page 57) On the one hand, halachah forbids a person from fulfilling another person's obligation unless both persons are equally obligated. Women, by rabbinic tradition, are exempt from most time-bound commandments, such as praying all services at fixed times. Therefore, a woman may not lead a religious service if a man is present, since a man is obligated to pray all religious services at fixed times and a woman is not, and, therefore, her obligation is not equal to his. However, in the case of reading the Megillat Esther and/or leading Birkat HaMazon, a woman is equally obligated, but is still forbidden to read or lead when men are present. "It is dishonorable?" Find me a good reason!
And then there's Rabbi Henkin's discussion of kol isha (the prohibition against a man hearing a woman sing, because a woman's singing voice is the functional equivalent of her nakedness). Here, I must apologize in advance to my Orthodox readers for, in all likelihood, causing offense: It's at times like this that I have an even more serious problem with the concept of Torah sheh-b'al peh, the Oral Law, than I usually have. Please correct me if I'm wrong: My understanding is that rabbinical interpretations of Jewish law were handed down orally by G-d to Moses on Mount Sinai, along with the Torah sheh-bi-ch'tav, the Written Law (specifically, the Chamesh Chumshei Torah/"Five Books of Moses" [Genesis through Deuteronomy]). Exactly how literally is one to take this idea? Here, Rav Sheshet and Rav Shmuel combine their artillery to say that "in the same way that gazing at a woman's little finger is tantamount to gazing at her private parts [Rav Sheshet], so too, is attentively listening to her voice [Rav Shmuel]." (Page 68) I'm sorry that I can't find a less offensive way to say this, but my first reaction to this logic is that "the Emperor has no clothes." To me, the whole notion that a woman's pinky is as erotic as her erogenous zones is patently absurd, and I cannot for the life of me comprehend why on earth half the Jewish people should be forbidden to listen to the other half sing (which, in practice, means that half the community is forbidden to sing in the presence of the other half) based on such a blatantly ridiculous idea. My pinky is too sexy to be seen, therefore, I must metaphorically tape my mouth shut in the presence of men??!!!!!! My second reaction is that Rav Sheshet is, apparently, of the opinion that a woman is nothing but a walking erogenous zone, her entire body, right down to her pinky, "a sin waiting to happen," in the words of a sister blogger. Excuse me, but I am under the distinct impression that woman are full-fledged human beings with brains and hearts in addition to sex organs. Just how many insults are we women expected to shut up for and put up with in the name of Torah miSinai? Thank goodness that there's a wide range of opinions about kol isha within the Orthodox community.
Related news, or Rabbi Henkin comes to the right conclusion for the wrong reason:
According to the Talmud, men are supposed to limit their conversation with women, for fear that too much contact with women will lead them to have sexual thoughts. Some rabbis of old ignored this prohibition because they felt that they were able to control themselves and/or didn’t have such thoughts, but the rabbis tend not to trust an individual male who claims to be just as pure-minded as the sages of old. However, since it’s become so common for everyone to mingle, community standards have made the mingling of the sexes acceptable, Rabbi Henkin posits.
Again, I have a problem with the fundamental premise, and so does my husband. We’ve discussed this, and both of us are of the same opinion: Based on our own personal experience, the more interaction one has with a person of the opposite sex—obviously, I’m not speaking of yichud (two persons of the opposite sex not married to one another being alone in a room together), but, rather, of such innocent interactions as might take place at a Chanukah party or barbeque—the more one gets to know that person as a whole human being, and consequently, the less one has exclusively sexual thoughts about that person. The “forbidden-fruit” problem is the issue, here: Put something—or someone—out of a person’s reach, and he or she becomes all the more desirable. Once, I was so distracted by a really cute guy that I had difficulty davvening (praying). I cured myself by talking to him at kiddush. Once he became a person with a name and something interesting to say, he was no longer simply a sex object. I haven’t had that problem with him since.
Reactions may differ by individual and/or by age and/or by sex—I can think of a couple of male bloggers who’ve written that they benefited from going to single-sex high schools. My own personal opinion remains that, certainly for adults, the more the sexes are separated, the more they are depersonalized, or, rather “de-person-alized,” and, thereby, turned into sexual objects. When a member of the opposite sex is known to you exclusively, or almost exclusively as, literally, a body on the opposite side of the mechitza (which may be the case in those communities in which males cross the street to avoid females, and vice versa), how could it be otherwise?
Good news: Rabbi Henkin condemns the practice of, on the one hand, serving glatt kosher food at a simcha (happy occasion), but, on the other hand, spending so much on the simcha that half the money should have been donated to charity instead. He’s not a great believer in conspicuous consumption.
Bad news, from a non-Orthodox Jew's perspective: Rav Henkin is opposed to the conversion of children being raised in non-Orthodox homes.
Mixed feelings about this one: Yes, on the one hand, it's important to be careful what tunes one picks when leading prayer, so that the tune reflects the words. (No, one shouldn't be singing, "Who will live or die, tra la la." And too many repetitions of the same word or words can drive me nuts! But no repetitions of a word, ever?!
Bottom line: Read the book, if only to read Rabbi Henkin's explanation of the difference between p'shat and drash.
Equality Lost: Essays in Torah Commentary, Halacha, and Jewish Thought, by Rabbi Yehuda Henkin, is a good news/bad news book.
Good news: Chava/Eve ate from the tree because Adam showed her zilzul, disrespect, by not telling her its name, as G-d had told him, whereas the serpent did tell her the tree's name ("the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.") "Man and woman were created equal, but from the first he related to her as an inferior; by doing so he caused her to stumble and the result was that she caused him to stumble." (Page 19.) For once, we women don't get blamed.
Good news: According to Rabbi Henkin, halachah (Jewish religious law) allows a woman to say kaddish and birkat hagomel (a blessing thanking Hashem when one survives a dangerous situation) from the women's section in the presence of a minyan.
Good news: Women may read Megillat Esther (the Scroll [of the Book of] Esther) for other women.
Bad news: Women may not read Megillat Esther, Torah, or Birkat haMazon (Grace After Meals) for men. Reasons? (1) Kol ishah (the prohibition against a man hearing a woman sing, because a woman's singing voice is the functional equivalent of her nakedness). (2) Zila beho milta , it is dishonorable for (a woman to help) the many (fulfill their obligation—there are some opinions that a woman may not read even for other women). (3) And/or it's "dishonorable for men to have women enable them to fulfill their obligation." (Kavod hatzibbur, round 4,568. Sigh.)
I just love statements such as this one (quoth she sarcastically): "women are equally obligated, but nevertheless may not read for men." (Page 57) On the one hand, halachah forbids a person from fulfilling another person's obligation unless both persons are equally obligated. Women, by rabbinic tradition, are exempt from most time-bound commandments, such as praying all services at fixed times. Therefore, a woman may not lead a religious service if a man is present, since a man is obligated to pray all religious services at fixed times and a woman is not, and, therefore, her obligation is not equal to his. However, in the case of reading the Megillat Esther and/or leading Birkat HaMazon, a woman is equally obligated, but is still forbidden to read or lead when men are present. "It is dishonorable?" Find me a good reason!
And then there's Rabbi Henkin's discussion of kol isha (the prohibition against a man hearing a woman sing, because a woman's singing voice is the functional equivalent of her nakedness). Here, I must apologize in advance to my Orthodox readers for, in all likelihood, causing offense: It's at times like this that I have an even more serious problem with the concept of Torah sheh-b'al peh, the Oral Law, than I usually have. Please correct me if I'm wrong: My understanding is that rabbinical interpretations of Jewish law were handed down orally by G-d to Moses on Mount Sinai, along with the Torah sheh-bi-ch'tav, the Written Law (specifically, the Chamesh Chumshei Torah/"Five Books of Moses" [Genesis through Deuteronomy]). Exactly how literally is one to take this idea? Here, Rav Sheshet and Rav Shmuel combine their artillery to say that "in the same way that gazing at a woman's little finger is tantamount to gazing at her private parts [Rav Sheshet], so too, is attentively listening to her voice [Rav Shmuel]." (Page 68) I'm sorry that I can't find a less offensive way to say this, but my first reaction to this logic is that "the Emperor has no clothes." To me, the whole notion that a woman's pinky is as erotic as her erogenous zones is patently absurd, and I cannot for the life of me comprehend why on earth half the Jewish people should be forbidden to listen to the other half sing (which, in practice, means that half the community is forbidden to sing in the presence of the other half) based on such a blatantly ridiculous idea. My pinky is too sexy to be seen, therefore, I must metaphorically tape my mouth shut in the presence of men??!!!!!! My second reaction is that Rav Sheshet is, apparently, of the opinion that a woman is nothing but a walking erogenous zone, her entire body, right down to her pinky, "a sin waiting to happen," in the words of a sister blogger. Excuse me, but I am under the distinct impression that woman are full-fledged human beings with brains and hearts in addition to sex organs. Just how many insults are we women expected to shut up for and put up with in the name of Torah miSinai? Thank goodness that there's a wide range of opinions about kol isha within the Orthodox community.
Related news, or Rabbi Henkin comes to the right conclusion for the wrong reason:
According to the Talmud, men are supposed to limit their conversation with women, for fear that too much contact with women will lead them to have sexual thoughts. Some rabbis of old ignored this prohibition because they felt that they were able to control themselves and/or didn’t have such thoughts, but the rabbis tend not to trust an individual male who claims to be just as pure-minded as the sages of old. However, since it’s become so common for everyone to mingle, community standards have made the mingling of the sexes acceptable, Rabbi Henkin posits.
Again, I have a problem with the fundamental premise, and so does my husband. We’ve discussed this, and both of us are of the same opinion: Based on our own personal experience, the more interaction one has with a person of the opposite sex—obviously, I’m not speaking of yichud (two persons of the opposite sex not married to one another being alone in a room together), but, rather, of such innocent interactions as might take place at a Chanukah party or barbeque—the more one gets to know that person as a whole human being, and consequently, the less one has exclusively sexual thoughts about that person. The “forbidden-fruit” problem is the issue, here: Put something—or someone—out of a person’s reach, and he or she becomes all the more desirable. Once, I was so distracted by a really cute guy that I had difficulty davvening (praying). I cured myself by talking to him at kiddush. Once he became a person with a name and something interesting to say, he was no longer simply a sex object. I haven’t had that problem with him since.
Reactions may differ by individual and/or by age and/or by sex—I can think of a couple of male bloggers who’ve written that they benefited from going to single-sex high schools. My own personal opinion remains that, certainly for adults, the more the sexes are separated, the more they are depersonalized, or, rather “de-person-alized,” and, thereby, turned into sexual objects. When a member of the opposite sex is known to you exclusively, or almost exclusively as, literally, a body on the opposite side of the mechitza (which may be the case in those communities in which males cross the street to avoid females, and vice versa), how could it be otherwise?
Good news: Rabbi Henkin condemns the practice of, on the one hand, serving glatt kosher food at a simcha (happy occasion), but, on the other hand, spending so much on the simcha that half the money should have been donated to charity instead. He’s not a great believer in conspicuous consumption.
Bad news, from a non-Orthodox Jew's perspective: Rav Henkin is opposed to the conversion of children being raised in non-Orthodox homes.
Mixed feelings about this one: Yes, on the one hand, it's important to be careful what tunes one picks when leading prayer, so that the tune reflects the words. (No, one shouldn't be singing, "Who will live or die, tra la la." And too many repetitions of the same word or words can drive me nuts! But no repetitions of a word, ever?!
Bottom line: Read the book, if only to read Rabbi Henkin's explanation of the difference between p'shat and drash.
Labels: Kol Isha
posted by Shira Salamone at 12:58 AM
8 Comments:
Thanks for the mention.
In your good news/bad news critique, you are obviously looking at the bottom line decision(or psak) that R. Henkin is making. A reviewer of R. Henkin's work wrote in the Edah journal that R. Henkin was a posek(decisor) who could be relied upon, especially when he was lenient(makeil). The classic approach, however, is to rely on a posek, whether he is lenient or strict. Because, the same thinking goes into a decision, no matter how it comes out. I admire R. Henkin for many reasons, but most of all for his willingness to look at a problem, and, seemingly without any preconceived notions, follow where the sources lead him. Sometimes it is to a stunningly liberal conclusion(he has said that theoretically women can have aliyot under certain circumstances), and sometimes it is to a strict conclusion. However, even with the strict conclusion(such as kol isha, etc), he includes what seems to me a very heartfelt line, that we should accept what God has asked us to do with love. He understands that the halacha is not conforming to what modern day ethos might want. But Halacha is God given, and R. Henkin is maintaining the integrity of Halacha as he sees it. He is not making chumra's. He is calling them as they come, as best as he can.
I will try to address Torah shel b'al peh another time.
Dilbert, thanks for the thoughtful response. I'll reply when I'm awake enough to post an equally thoughtful response.
"I will try to address Torah shel b'al peh another time."
I'm waiting, I'm waiting. Because Torah sheh b'al peh is at the heart of the issue.
"even with the strict conclusion(such as kol isha, etc), he includes what seems to me a very heartfelt line, that we should accept what God has asked us to do with love. He understands that the halacha is not conforming to what modern day ethos might want. But Halacha is God given, and R. Henkin is maintaining the integrity of Halacha as he sees it. He is not making chumra's. He is calling them as they come, as best as he can."
The problem is that I don't see the kol isha prohibition as "G-d given." I see it as given by Rav Sheshet, whose patently ridiculous premise that even a woman's pinkie is indecent is, in my opinion, a clear indication either that he was having a really bad day or that he was involved in a miserably unhappy marriage. This is exactly what I meant when I asked how literally one is supposed to take the idea that the Torah sheh-b'al peh was given to Moshe on Har Sinai. Don't the human beings who've voiced these laws have anything to do with them? Are they nothing but conduits? Is every word that every scholar ever spoke to be taken as the literal word of G-d, never to be questioned?
For closers, I don't see the kol isha prohibition as something that "G-d has asked us to do." Here's the logic, as best I can understand it: (a) "Halacha is G-d given"; (b) According to halachah, even a woman's pinkie is indecent; (c) Therefore, it follows that halachah and/or G-d consider(s) half the human race to be a walking obscenity. Frankly, I don't know who should be more insulted--me, at being presented with one of the most insulting, contemptuous concepts I've ever encountered in my life, or G-d, to whom such a contemptuous concept is attributed.
If I find it impossible to believe that such a absurd and contemptuous premise could have been Hashem's idea (and/or in the spirit of what a divine justice would propose), then how can I and/or why should I accept laws that are based on it?
If you think about it, what we call Judaism today, and what we practice is Rabbinic Judaism, and it is based on the Oral Law(this term will mean Mishnah/Gemara/Talmud). We are not a Temple based sacrificial religion, as described in the Tanach.
From a practical point of view, some of what appears in the Talmud seems to be an explanation and expansion of Torah based ideas(what exactly is chametz, blowing shofar, etc). Other parts are clearly not Torah based(the whole discussion of Hannukah for example).
If one does not accept some sort of Divine inspiration/authority for the Talmud, there really is no reason to follow the laws outlined in it. Then you would be joining the Kariites. If the talmud has a Divine basis, then rejecting a view simply because one does not agree with it, or because it does not jive with modern views of ethics/morality is in reality rejecting a Divine(or somewhat Divine) idea for one that is clearly a product of humans.
The written Torah does not contain enough detail to be a one and only guidebook. It tells us to put up a mezuza but doesn't say what is in it, or exactly where. It doesn't say exactly what Tefillin are. The list goes on and on. Therefore, it is logical that there was an unwritten part given as well.
I choose to believe that the Talmud represents the unwritten parts of the Torah, as best as could be put together after 800 or so years, combined with the Divinely inspired ideas of how to continue Judaism in the absence of the Temple(however, synagogue/prayer based Judaism had started and was thriving well before 70 CE.) I accept the Talmud as interpreted on down the line, as authoritative. However, to paraphrase my father-in-law, it is the substance of the Talmud that is authoritative, not the specific conclusions. In other words, the Talmud gives us a number of options. I cant reject an opinion because I think that Rabbi was mistaken, or had a bad day. However, I can conclude that a different stated opinion should be followed. Remember, the Talmud is not a monolithic set of laws carefully and systematically set fowards. There are many conflicting opinions that are sometimes reconciled, and sometimes not. Using our tradition, we have to find the right path among the many.
"From a practical point of view, some of what appears in the Talmud seems to be an explanation and expansion of Torah based ideas(what exactly is chametz, blowing shofar, etc). Other parts are clearly not Torah based(the whole discussion of Hannukah for example)."
Agreed.
"If one does not accept some sort of Divine inspiration/authority for the Talmud, there really is no reason to follow the laws outlined in it."
That's not necessarily true. One can also be observant out of respect for the wisdom of our ancestors and to give oneself roots, which is pretty much a Reconstructionist approach. Check out that radical-in-thought-but Orthodox-in-practice (orthoprax?) rabbi in Chaim Potok's "The Chosen"--that's what I have in mind. (I've always been convinced that that character was based on Reconstructionist Judaism's founder, Rabbi Morchechai Kaplan.)
I don't believe in Torah miSinai, that a supernatural G-d gave Moses the Torah/Bible/Written Law and/or Oral Law and/or the subsequent interpretations on Mount Sinai. If I observe, it's by my choice, not by G-d's command. Whether or not HaShem literally created the earth in seven days--which I know is a matter of debate even within the Orthodox community--is of no relevance to me: Insofar as I observe Shabbat/Sabbath, I do so because I think that the concept of a regularly-scheduled and reasonably frequent day of rest is one of our people's greatest contributions to the human race.
" to paraphrase my father-in-law, it is the substance of the Talmud that is authoritative, not the specific conclusions. In other words, the Talmud gives us a number of options. I cant reject an opinion because I think that Rabbi was mistaken, or had a bad day. However, I can conclude that a different stated opinion should be followed. Remember, the Talmud is not a monolithic set of laws carefully and systematically set fowards. There are many conflicting opinions that are sometimes reconciled, and sometimes not. Using our tradition, we have to find the right path among the many."
So even if you consider the Talmud authoritative, you still have some choice as to which interpretation you accept. Personally, I prefer the smorgasbord approach to Jewish tradition--I'm a pick-and-choose type--but one of the nice things about Judaism is that we Jews are allowed to use our brains, and, at least to some extent, make our own decisions.
That being the case, how would *you* express an opinion concerning Rav Sheshet's statement that looking at a woman's pinkie is the functional equivalent of looking at her private parts? What's the method? Do you have to search for another opinion that's accepted by the traditional community as equally authoritative? This is all new to me--I'm accustomed to making decisions on my own, for the most part, so I really don't know how one makes a decision within the system.
I think part of the problem is the Jewish education is terrible (truly tragic, we used to be the envy of the world), and as the Ashkenazim stopped educating our children, the superstitious Hassidic practices snuck in and became Orthodoxy.
The "even this" of a woman is Erva exchange that becomes the basis of Tzinut extremism is patently absurd, it's a talmudic game of one upsmanship that does NOT appear to have any Mensorah backing in more than a few hundred years from the superstitious Hassidim when they were considered heretics by mainstream Orthodoxy because they became the ideal.
For example, is a woman's hair erva? If so, all Bat Mitzvah girls should cover their hair, like our Muslim cousins do, because if a woman's hair is sexual, then it needs to be covered, period. If a married woman's hair is considered private, but a single woman's hair is not, then we've hit an absurd argument, so let's define a non-absurd one.
In the description of the Sotah trial, the woman's hair is uncovered. This is humiliating her, because during the trial, we're treating her as though not truly married. However, if her hair was ACTUALLY erva, then the Kohen would not be uncovering her hair, because that's absurd.
From this we learn that married women cover their hair, but that it's not forbidden to be seen.
Following this logic, a married woman covers her hair as a sign of being married, so that another man doesn't gaze upon her hair and covet her. SImilarly, a sheitel/wig would NOT be permitted, and historically was not. However, the Hassidim started doing so, and the Lubavacher Rebbe told his followers to do so, and its not accepted practice for Ashkenazim. Sephardim follow the stricter opinion that the hair covering must be a sign of being married, so must be visible, not a wig.
Likewise, a woman's voice is a more interesting thing. As far as I can tell, it stems from a woman's voice being considered pleasing and pleasant, and that a woman shouldn't sing to her husband when she is Niddah. As we can't go around asking women in the choir if they are Niddah and thus risking arousing their husband, or noting their absence from a group half the month, we avoid having women sing in public to avoid the issue. This should only apply to married women.
As far as I can tell the application to unmarried women is another Hassidic weirdness. Under written and oral law, unmarried women SHOULD be enticing men so that they be married. In fact, to PREVENT single women from enticing men because they might entice married men seems absurd to me... seeing as how the only reason not to entice married men is to avoid them violating the local laws of their community (since there is no ban on a second wife in either Written Law, Oral Law, or Rabbinic Law, merely a edict for Ashkenazim that expired about 20 years ago).
Regarding the Oral Law.... it's something that makes me uncomfortable. Clearly the written Law is written in such a way that certain cultural assumptions go into it. Things are instructed assuming that you know what they are, hence the need for the "Oral Law." But we know from historical records that the Tefillin seems to resemble headgear worn by Pharaoh in some pictures, so the concept and instruction to the Israelites no doubt made sense in context to them, but would make no sense to modern Jews living in Christian America. However, that's also the reason that your learning suffers from ignoring the commentary... When learning Gemara, Rambam, or other human constructs, the series of commentators helps because they are closer to being contemporaries and better understand the context of their writing. One wouldn't read Beowulf without help, so why a Gemarra?
We know that it isn't word-for-word, but that it comprises Jewish law as understood by those that codified it. Up until the codification, practices were not so uniform, or there would be no dissenting opinions.
So the problem is, one can be annoyed at the deification of ignorance that seems to have crept into Orthodoxy... why would one need to learn if you go to your Rabbi with everything... makes sense for ignorant Jews who are uneducated, but a Yeshiva educated man shouldn't need to go to his Rav for anything but rulings on conflicts with others, not day-to-day stuff... but at the same time, even the Orthodox who have issues with it still need an environment to live and raise a family in.
I like being in a neighborhood where being Shomer Shabbat is normal and expected, not my kids being freaks. I like being in a neighborhood where my friends and neighbors eat in my home and I eat in their homes, and we don't need to compromise on Kashrut to do so.
My issue with the rightward shift of Orthodoxy is that it doesn't appear to be a rightward shift, it's a hassidic shift, and while I find the Hassidim I know wonderful and warm people, I don't agree with them theologically and don't want to adopt their practices.
Alex, thanks for your thoughts. No doubt you're right that reading the commentaries can help one understand the context in which the laws were written. There are some definite drawbacks to not having been privileged to receive a yeshiva education and not being patient enough to study what I, thereby, missed.
Concerning women's hair covering, I came to conclusions similar to yours. See here (especially number 3.)
Alex, you also said "I like being in a neighborhood where being Shomer Shabbat is normal and expected, not my kids being freaks." Sigh--I know all about living in the wrong neighborhood: In our case, our son considered *us* freaks.
Post a Comment
<< Home