Men in Halachah—Shirking their responsibilities, part 2
You want proof? You’ve got it.
Centuries ago, when universal education was not so readily available even in the Jewish community, the rabbanim/rabbis established several practices in order to prevent the less-educated from being embarrassed in public. Speaking of the less-educated, I’m not learnèd enough to list these practices in the order in which they were established, so please bear with me if my list is not in chronological order.
Practice #1(?): Every groom, even the greatest scholar, was to be required to recite the central statement of the marriage ceremony, “Harei at . . . . ,“ word by word after the m’sader k’dushin (whoever’s “performing the ceremony”). In this way, a groom who was not educated enough to recite the words by himself would not be humiliated in front of the gantze mishpocheh/entire family.
Practice #2(?): In an era in which universal education was not a given, but the requirement for a man, but not necessarily a woman, to study Torah was already established, the rabbis ruled that a woman, though technically permitted to have an aliyah, should not have one “l’ma-an kavod ha-tzibbur” (for the sake of the honor of the congregation). At that time, a person called for an aliyah had to read from the sefer Torah/Torah scroll by him/herself. Therefore, only a literate person could be called up for an aliyah. The reasoning of the rabbis was that a congregation whose women were educated enough to read from the scroll, but whose men were not sufficiently educated, would be embarrassed, since men were required to study Torah but women were exempt.
Practice #3(?): The rabbis established the practice of having a baal koreh (master of the reading)/leiner/pre-assigned Torah reader, in order to enable any man to have an aliyah, whether he were learnèd enough to read from the sefer Torah for himself or not.
Whoa, Nellie! Wait a minute! Rewind that tape! Play back the previous song on that CD! Let’s go to the videotape! Let's see the instant replay!
Women were banned from having aliyot lest their ability to read from a sefer Torah put men to shame. Then, the rabbis established the practice of having a “designated reader.” Therefore, even if you assume (which, obviously, I don’t) that having some women in the community who are better educated than some of the men is an embarrassment to the community, the reason for continuing to prohibit women from being called up for an aliyah no longer exists! Now that every minyan has a baal koreh, no one has to be capable of reading from the scroll in order to have an aliyah!
Why, then, does the prohibition against giving women aliyot persist? Why, indeed, was the prohibition established in the first place? The only reason I can see is that the rabbis were convinced that men have weak egos, and were so concerned about protecting a man’s fragile self-image that they were perfectly willing to ban half the Jewish people from reading from the scroll of the Law that we all received at Sinai.
Why should every Jewish woman be forced to pay the price for protecting Jewish men’s weak egos? Is not every Jew responsible for believing that all humans are made b’tzelem kelokim, in G-d’s image (however one wishes to interpret that)—and for acting accordingly?
19 Comments:
If women are so gosh darn happy, why all the women's minyans popping up everywhere?
1 - They don't always get aliyos there. In almost all cases, they don't.
2 - A woman's minyan is quite possiby a perfect example of what Adam meant above. Woman aren't clamoring for aliyos with the men, around the men b/ they have other ways to express themselves, and feel Jewish.
3 - Many would argue that the women who go to those woman prayer groups belong with Shira, and not with Orthodoxy, in that they aren't satisfied with the many, many venues of spiritual expression available for ORthodox women. Most orthodox women say "What I have is plenty. I can be a full fledged Jew within the traditional rules. It is different, but it is sufficient."
Only the ones unable to see that run to the women's prayer group. If they lived fully, 100 percent as Jewish women, I doubt they'd nbeed it, because they'd see all the other traditional venues at their disposal.
In response to Adam:
“Why, then, does the prohibition against giving women aliyot persist?
1 - Because Judaism does not shed prohibitions and limitations once they have been aquired and accepted. That isn't always good or always bad. It just is.”
As I said in the comments to my previous post, I have a problem with the inability of Jewish law to adapt itself adequately to changing circumstances. To give you a truly serious example, there’s the “agunah” problem . . .’Nuf said.
”2 - To receive an aliya, a woman would nec. enter the men's section of the shul, which is, today, considered immodest.”
I’ll grant you that it’s pretty difficult to get around that problem in a synagogue with a mechitzah (barrier or balcony separating men and women).
“::Why should every Jewish woman be forced to pay the price::
. . . I don't know a single Orthodox woman who feels deprived over not being able to receive an aliya. There are a few possible reasons for this:
1 - False conciousness. Perhaps, Orthodox Woman have been raised and trained not to care, ie to accept something that is unacceptable.”
I think that pretty much goes without saying.
In response to Anonymous:
I have nothing but the highest respect for those women who choose to remain Orthodox while seeking greater opportunities for themselves within the rules imposed by halachah/Jewish law. Kol hakavod (all honor) to the women’s tefillah/prayer groups. I pray that no woman who believes sincerely in the authority of halachah will ever feel the need to leave the Torah community because of the lack of opportunity for women within it.
Shira -
As you requested, I have read your two posts and all of the comments. Re "Kol Isha," my hubby (the rabbi) and other males I know have absolutely told me that in certain circumstances, a woman's singing voice IS alluring, regardless of what she is wearing, and sometimes even when he can't see her at all. It may not be true for your husband, but I suppose everyone is different. (I personally find some *men's* singing or even speaking voices to be alluring, myself - Russell Crowe's speaking voice, for example, especially in "Master and Commander..." Sigh.)
And of COURSE men as a group have poor self-control (no offense, guys - I know it's not true with every one of you, and that we ladies have no idea how difficult it is to BE one of you)! That is quite obvious and has been proven throughout the ages, and as the wife of a congregational rabbi as well as a general person in society, I can PROMISE you that it remains true today. Why did Chazal expect women to bear some responsibility for keeping men in line? First, as was commented, men are also held quite responsible in halacha for keeping THEMSELVES in line. The reason women are expected to help out, I believe, is, for one, that Chazal were smart enough to trust women to do their part more than they trusted men. And for another, why SHOULDN'T we help out?? If we know it creates difficulty for men to remain faithful to their wives, or even to remain focused on their own lives and work - or on God, spirituality, and holiness - when we engage in certain behaviors or expose parts of our bodies, then what's wrong with making it easier on them? Do we WANT to cause difficulty? Don't we care about each other and want to raise our collective spiritual awareness as a people?
(Incidentally, it so happens that an old flame of mine was still quite interested in me after I became engaged. It was my pleasure to make HIS life easier by avoiding him like the plague, and baruch Hashem, I have yet to see him again to this day. :-)
I can certainly see where the conversation in the Talmud listing all the "erva" of women can sound like attempts at one-upmanship (although I personally don't read it that way at all). But we should be aware that not every conversation in the Talmud took place exactly as reported - sometimes conversations are "constructed" as a way of reporting opinions, and apparently there are many, many instances of "conversations" in the Gmara where the parties actually lived centuries apart. Go figure.
Regarding getting an aliya, I am fairly certain that kol isha is not generally cited as a halachic argument against it (although I wonder - what would Russell sound like if HE leined an aliya?? Sigh....). Unless I'm wrong, which is possible, the only problem seems to be the kavod hatzibur thing. I don't at all have the same historical problems with it that you seem to, as it doesn't bother me in the slightest if Jewish women were largely on the back burner of male consciousness in a time when women in general society often didn't even make it to the stovetop. As to halacha's tendency to evolve or not in accordance with cultural changes - well, that IS the point of contention between Orthodoxy and Conservative, and Conservative and Reform, isn't it??
I'm also not in agreement that the restrictions were intended to protect men's weak egos (although men do tend to like their egos boosted, don't they? :-) - it seems to me from the text that as you say, it was to protect the image of the congregation or community as a whole, which is why it is billed "kavod hatzibur" and not "kavod ha male members of the tzibur." If a community couldn't sufficiently educate its men in spite of its obligation to do so, that WOULD be embarrassing, and all the more so if they attempted to solve the lack of education problem by having a woman take over, thereby announcing to the world that they were shirking their obligations to those obligated, while indulging those who weren't. That would be wrong for a community to do, and embarrassing to the community if it became known. As far as the practice not being changed once the regular baalei kriah came into being - #1, does anyone out there know WHEN that occurred? I feel it would make a difference. I can ask the rabbi tomorrow, but he's sleeping at the moment, and he may not know either. #2, as to no one at the time taking the initiative to change it once there was a regular baal kriah, I would imagine there weren't many vocal feminists at that point in time to SUGGEST changing it, and once again, if women were on the rabbis' back burner, then the rabbis were no different from any other males at the time. Why can't it change now? Perhaps it can, and in Conservative and Reform and some liberal Orthodox places, it has. And in other Orthodox places, it hasn't, and most likely it won't.
Speaking of which - the Bnei Brak thing - we must let Hareidim be Hareidim. They do what they do because that's what they do, and they'll probably continue to do it, and there's nothing any of us "moderns" can do about it (nor should we, IMHO, except where there's some kind of actual danger involved).
By the way - back to kol isha for a second - there's another matter that we shouldn't disregard when discussing issues of tznius, etc. and why the onus for the preservation of the purity of Jewish men may sometimes fall on women, and that is the very real and very serious prohibition against hashchatat zera (wasting sperm). The problem with arousing the poor guys is not only that we will preoccupy their thoughts or endanger their marriages - it's that sexual fantasies, not only sexual behavior, can create very serious halachic problems for men in a way that they simply don't for women. And as fellow Jews, we SHOULD be concerned to help safeguard them against that.
I'm sure I have more to comment on these matters, but BOY is it late. I had intended to post on hair-covering on my own blog at some point, and perhaps I'll take up some of these issues as well.
Hope the comments aren't too long - I probably got carried away hearing the sound of my own keyboard. I didn’t mean to ramble and take up so much space.
Thanks so much for the invite to comment, and I hope we continue our blogging relationship.
Just throwing out a fact already on the ground...
http://www.geocities.com/shira_hadasha/
Liberal Orthodox shul, coed torah readings.
They've got a fabric mehhitza that separates the room into parallel men's and women's sides, and bisects the bima. When a male leiner is leining for a female alíya-getter, and vice-versa, they each stand on their side of the mehhitza (the part of the mehhitza directly over the bima is moved so it doesn't drape all over the torah).
I've been told that there are similar minyans (colloquially referred to as "shira hhadasha style") popping up in some places all over the Jewish world. I know of one in New York, heard of one i think in Boston, and i seem to remember hearing of one or more in other places too...
The question is, will Shira Hhadasha precipitate a paradigm shift within Orthodoxy? Will it develop, against its developers' wishes, into a new and separate movement? Will it just "be there" for those people for whom it's the most comfortable choice? Or will it fall apart in a few years, and be left to the history books as an unusal early-21st-century phenomenon?
Steg (dos iz nit der šteg)
Easy one first. The groom repeats the phrase to avoid being embarrassed. Judaism goes to great lengths to avoid embarassing people, and things. One reason given for covering the challah(admitedly among others) is so that it will not be embarrassed because the bracha is being said of wine(kiddush) first. When the groom gives his wedding speech, the minhag is to interrupt him, so that he cannot finish, because it might not be such a good speech. The Rambam's list of levels of Tzedakah emphasizes anonymity both for the giver and recipient to avoid embarrassment. My guess is that there are poor as well as rich women and men. So, I dont think that this can be used as proof of protecting men's fragile egos. It is to avoid embarrassing a person(who happens to be a man), and avoidng embarrassing a person has a good track record in our custom and Halacha.
Pay the price? Getting an aliya isn't really such a wonderful prize, Shira. AR,
By whose standards? In whose opinon? And why are aliyot auctioned off on Yom Kippur if what you say is true?
I have gotten aliyot, and I find them a wonderful honour, as they were meant to be. It is a major thrill to be saying blessings over the Torah, or to carry the sefer Torah. One time, in my early days, I watched a gentleman who was sitting down holding the Torah, and his face was beatific. I have seen people rush to touch the Torah when it is passing by, their faces eager and aglow. I have carried the sefer Torah a few times and I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. If that doesn't connect you with everything then I don't know what will!
If a community couldn't sufficiently educate its men in spite of its obligation to do so, that WOULD be embarrassing, and all the more so if they attempted to solve the lack of education problem by having a woman take over, thereby announcing to the world that they were shirking their obligations to those obligated, while indulging those who weren't. RR,
With all due respect, 3 things strike me here:
1) A community that doesn't sufficiently educate its men should be embarrassed, and it is a greater embarrassment to a community to have no one to lead than women lead; of course that does not preclude a greater embarrassment for men, which, imo, they would deserve. It therefore behooves the men to get their act together and not use women as a shield against their own failings or the community's.
And a community that doesn't educate its women should be equally embarrassed. Moreover, if that woman is indeed able to lead, then that community embarrasses the woman by educating her and then denying her a fitting place. No one has discussed the possibility of women being embarrassed or belittled. The interdiction implicitly sends the message that it is the woman, in the final analysis, who must not embarrass, even if she is educated. For if one man cannot lead, another man may, and yet not embarrass the first.
2) Implicitly, there is an assumption that letting women lead provides a false solution to the lack of men's education. I fail to see how "x" follows from "a" here. How can letting women lead be equated with a solution whatsoever? Letting women lead, imo, is an addition. Letting women lead can be seen in various ways, not simply as an excuse for men. Could letting another man lead not be seen as a false solution as well? And are men so weak and lazy that if a woman is able to lead and did lead, that they would be perfectly willing to shirk their responsbility because women will do it for them? Does that not again place blame on the women's shoulders? And show up the men as weak saps?
3) I find your use of the word "indulging" very telling. Men may be "shirking" their obligations but to allow women to lead is an "indulgence". So it makes sense, that even educating women beyond the usual feminine role might be seen as an "indulgence" as well. It is not.
IMO, women's education and ability to lead are not an excuse, nor are they a solution when it comes to the problem of men's education. Nor should women be used as an excuse or a solution for a community's problems and men's problems in particular for fear of destabilisation. Because I think that's what it is really about.
BJ – Thanks for the thoughtful response.
First, please don’t preface your responses to me with “with all due respect,” just because I happen to have married a rabbi (if that is indeed why you did it), unless it’s your practice to do so with everyone. I don’t believe my choice of spouse makes me “due” any more respect than any other human being, and as you don’t know me, you are perfectly welcome to tell me I’m an idiot, or to drop dead, if you’d like (although that wouldn’t be nice).
“It therefore behooves the men to get their act together and not use women as a shield against their own failings or the community's.”
Of COURSE men have to get their acts together. We ALL have to get our acts together. A community that is not educating its members is comprised of both women AND men, and ALL of them have to get their act together and fulfill ALL of their obligations to themselves, each other, the Jewish people, and the world at large. However (and don’t we all know it), a community often doesn’t have the resources – money, educated people, whatever – to get its act together as much as it is required to. In those cases, shouldn’t the community take care of those who are obligated before it takes care of those who are not obligated? When my siblings and I used to fight over the computer, the person who had a paper due the next day got to use it before the person who wanted to use it to practice for SAT’s – not because SAT’s were not just as important as the paper, but because one did not have a CHOICE except to use it, whereas the other COULD have gone without it. Don’t you think it would have been an irresponsible move on my parents’ part if they gave it to the SAT practicer (is that a word?) first?
“A community that doesn't educate its women should be equally embarrassed.”
This is certainly true today, which is why the UN report on the Arab countries specifically said that one of the (many) ways the Arab world is screwing itself over is by not educating and empowering its women. But it was simply not true then. Women WERE second-class citizens, they WERE typically relegated to traditional roles, and whether we like it or not, women WERE NOT OBLIGATED TO LEARN, and men were. In the socio-cultural climate of the Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Babylonian worlds of the Talmud, a community that educated its women and not its men would have been quite out of place (although probably much better off in the long run, if you ask me), and being out of place often translates into embarrassment, whether it should or not.
“Moreover, if that woman is indeed able to lead, then that community embarrasses the woman by educating her and then denying her a fitting place.”
Undeniably true, although I believe the community is ALSO embarrassing itself in that case. Incidentally, this argument was one of the several put forth by the lay committee in the Conservative movement that was called upon to research and make recommendations regarding the ordination of women. They noted that young girls were educated and otherwise treated equally to boys from childhood onward, and then suddenly there was a place for men to continue where women could not, and there didn’t seem to be a logical explanation for the sudden difference. Hareidim seem also to acknowledge the legitimacy of this claim by tending not to bother educating their girls at all, or certainly not in the same manner as boys, and are thus set up for far fewer women who feel stifled than in the MO community.
“No one has discussed the possibility of women being embarrassed or belittled.”
That is absolutely not true. It may not come up in this context but it is ALL over rabbinic literature, first of all not to embarrass ANYONE regardless of gender, and there are plenty of instances of husbands – as well as rabbis and men in general – being admonished not to embarrass or belittle their wives. Unfortunately, as many of those instances tend to depict women as – dare I say the “s” word – sensitive, they are not so beloved by many feminist advocates.
“The interdiction implicitly sends the message that it is the woman, in the final analysis, who must not embarrass, even if she is educated. For if one man cannot lead, another man may, and yet not embarrass the first.”
No, the interdiction states explicitly that the COMMUNITY must not allow ITSELF to be embarrassed by publicizing the fact that it ignores its obligations when it DOES have the resources to fulfill them. And the man who reads from the Torah does not embarrass the one who cannot read from the Torah, because nobody has to know that the first one is not being called up to the Torah because he cannot read.
“And are men so weak and lazy that if a woman is able to lead and did lead, that they would be perfectly willing to shirk their responsbility because women will do it for them? Does that not again place blame on the women's shoulders? And show up the men as weak saps?”
Um – yes. Halacha DOES often assume that men are weak and lazy, as well as undisciplined, and WOULD happily shirk their responsibilities if given the opportunity, which is why it saddles them with so much freakin’ responsibility in the first place. And halacha does not “place blame” anywhere – why does it have to be about “placing blame?” What is so wrong with men and women both taking responsibility for each other, and taking steps to help, support, and avoid embarrassing each other, without a blame war taking place?? Men are obligated to learn, and as such should be educated enough to read from the Torah. If they aren’t, why should a woman flaunt it in their faces that she knows and they don’t??
“I find your use of the word "indulging" very telling. Men may be "shirking" their obligations but to allow women to lead is an "indulgence".”
You’re probably right, that was a poor choice of words. I apologize. I just meant that it would be embarrassing for a community to announce to the world that it was shirking its obligations to those obligated while using its resources for those who aren’t.
“IMO, women's education and ability to lead are not an excuse, nor are they a solution when it comes to the problem of men's education. Nor should women be used as an excuse or a solution for a community's problems and men's problems in particular for fear of destabilisation. Because I think that's what it is really about.”
I’m not sure I followed everything in your last couple of paragraphs – I think my community may not have used enough resources on ME, lol. But I certainly agree with you that much of the perceived inequality in our halachic system likely stems from a fear of destabilization. Since patriarchy was all that Chazal knew, the notion of turning it on its head – or even taking minor steps towards rattling its foundations a bit – probably WAS very frightening, and felt very threatening. And while the particular issue of “kavod hatzibur” re women getting aliyot is NOT one of the rabbinic passages that seems sexist to me, I don’t fault Chazal for sometimes appearing sexist. They lived in sexist times.
Thanks again for the conversation.
RenReb
From OOSJ -
I don't have much of intelligence to add to the voluminous comments, so I will add something less than intelligent.
An orthodox shul is meant to be a men's lodge, ala the Honemooners. The Grand Pooh-bah is the president (of the gabbai here in Israel) and they don't like it when the girls join in. Most of these men don't have much else in the way of power (especially in the modern world) and this is what they cling to.
Without a mechitza men would not be able to wander around the shul, talk sports, business (or Torah)and would have to , well, behave themselves.
I personally like to sit and read (torah) during most of shabbat tefilot and only filled out a "aliya detail card" when threatened by the gabbai to be given an aliya every week !!!
This of course does not excuse the exclusion of women in halakhically permitted activities (simchat torah dancing comes to mind), but as sociology, my guess is its dead on. Give men something else (exclusive) to do, and you will see them allow women into the sanctuary.
AR
Then why is it such a big deal for women to get an aliyah if it is some small thing? I was responding to your comment that it is no big deal when clearly it is a big deal, not trivial at all, as your own post suggests.
Yes, I am sure everyone would agree there are many other things people can do besides "mumbling a few words". However, I know of and am sure that there are plenty of people who do not mumble and who do take it seriously, and come for an aliyah with reverence for G-d and for Torah. Both in your shul and mine, don't you think?
Our shul has just commissioned a new sefer Torah. Today the scribe was filling in the last panel of Breishit after a talk about how it is all done. There was a huge crowd (unheard of for most other things!). We each had an opportunity, all the children and all the adults present, to go up and place our hand on the scribe's hand for one stroke. Can there be a greater thrill???? It was an immense and momentous occasion with a whole lot of rejoicing. How often do we get that opportunity in a lifetime? And we shall all be able to fulfill the mitzvah of writing our own sefer. All of us. And I don't think that that is a small thing either. For man or woman.
Wow, there are so many posts to which to respond that I fear I’ll be responding in an order other than that in which they were posted (and that I’ll forget something important), but here goes, anyway.
dilbert, you have a very good point. Even while I was typing about the “harei at . . . “ business, I was wondering whether that was an appropriate example. Embarrassing people in public is not generally a good thing.
Anonymous from OOSJ, one of my best friends has been saying for years that the morning minyan functions as a Men’s Club, and I can’t disagree.
Anonymous, I think that the “Shirah Chadashah” minyanim are a wonderful idea. I hope that such minyanim will continue to thrive within the Orthodox community, giving those women who are committed to the Torah world an opportunity to enhance their participation in public ritual while remaining loyal to the Orthodox interpretation of halachah.
Renegade Rebbitzen, thank you for the thoughtful posts. The approach that, by helping men avoid sinning, women are just showing consideration, one Jew for another, is a noteworthy interpretation. “What is so wrong with men and women both taking responsibility for each other, and taking steps to help, support, and avoid embarrassing each other, without a blame war taking place??”
On the whole, however, I feel more comfortable with the approach of the Barefoot Jewess, which shouldn’t surprise anyone, given my egalitarian leanings. “if that woman is indeed able to lead, then that community embarrasses the woman by educating her and then denying her a fitting place. . . The interdiction implicitly sends the message that it is the woman, in the final analysis, who must not embarrass, even if she is educated.” Indeed, my congregation allows a woman to lead a weekday morning minyan when there’s no qualified male present, but does not allow a woman to lead a Shabbat or Yom Tov one, and one likely reason is that, since we barely get even a mixed minyan at weekday services, there aren’t enough witnesses for the congregation to feel embarrassed. It would also explain why I often feel that I’m being “blamed” for being better educated Jewishly than many of the other congregants, both female and male. (Heaven help my congregation, that it considers an “am ha-aretz”/Jewishly-undereducated person like me to be one of its resident scholars. (: ) The whole notion that many of these rules are based on a patriarchal tradition’s fear of destabilization makes a great deal of sense to me.
Adam Ragil, while it’s true that there are many worthy aspects to Judaism, such as studying, giving tzedakah, doing ma-asim tovim/good deeds, and enhancing one’s observance of Shabbat and other mitzvot/commandments, having an aliyah is one of them. It’s simply that I would prefer not to be excluded, and continue to see no really good reason why I should be. Obviously, we’re going to continue to disagree.
On the bright side, I’m happy to see that all of us, although often disagreeing quite radically with one another, were able to state our views in a manner that showed derech eretz/courtesy to one another. I hope that my blog will continue to be an exemplar of civil discourse among the various segments of the Jewish community.
Ahem: We interrupt that wonderful speech to remind Shira that she’s *supposed* to be at Jobs.com. [See my post "Between Jobs--temping in a rotten economy" at http://onthefringe_jewishblog.blogspot.com/2004/10/between-jobstemping-in-rotten-economy.html#comments.] Sigh.
I am not sure if I am to the right of Adam R., but I am also not sure if a historical error is the reason for not giving women aliyot. First of all, the starting point for what we do has to be Halacha. It is certainly fine and good to discuss the rational behind various prohibitions, and how and if they apply today. But the bottom line is that you cant throw a prohibition away just because you think it shouldn't apply. There has to be a basis for the reason in our Tradition. Again, just to be clear, I am not saying the Halacha is not changing, and we shouldn't take into account the social and societal milieu that various rulings were made under, but you cant just throw them out. Otherwise, our religion, instead of being the word of God, becomes the word of Dilbert, Shira, Adam, Barefoot, and Rebetzin. So the discussion of whether women should have aliyot is actually secondary to the discussion of whether it is halachically possible for women to have aliyot. If we can find a halachically acceptable way to arrange it, good. If not, the point is kind of moot, unless you go by the Rav Kook(as quoted by Tamar Ross-see Judaism Sept 22 1992 I think) theory of change: The initial practice is seen as a break from Halacha, until it is done over and over again by more and more people and finally accepted as a valid practice, in fact under Halacha.
I appreciate the discussion about the historical context and whether it stiill should be valid, but that by itself is not a nuts and bolts halachic discussion of the issue. We are instructed to do "the right and the good" but I think the next words are "in the eyes of God". If people do what they think is right, what is to keep us from getting rid of other prohibitions that don't seem reasonable? The answer for the believing Jew is do what is right, but to stay within Halacha. And that is no easy task, especially because what is right and what is within Halacha is different for each and every one of us.
ps for a nuts and bolts Halachic discussion of women's aliyot, see Edah Journal, available online, Vol. 2 issue 1. you get the pro and the con
Hold the fort, folks: If I don't practice my typing--my Word skills are good, my typing speed is not--for Wednesday morning's interview, I'll have no chance of getting any job that the agency might have available, so I won't be here again until Wednesday afternoon.
Quick response to Adam, in the meantime--yes, by all means, let's remain friends.
Mumble, mumble, kvetch and grumble
Heartburn burn and fingers stumble.
Back to typing practice. (: See you in about 24 hours.
Thanks for the heads-up, dilbert—I’ll have to have a look at some of those articles in the Edah Journal.
Adam Ragil has presented a pretty good summary of the currently-available options for women within Orthodoxy. Personally, I don’t agree that making a commotion on the subject is a waste of time. I think that people might actually start to listen, after a while.
This brings me to dilbert’s point, that one can’t change Halachah simply because one thinks that it should be changed. I can only hope that, at some future time, a contingent of rabbanim/rabbis large enough and influential enough to have an impact on a large segment of the Torah community will study carefully the issue of the inclusion of women in public ritual to determine whether any change can be sanctioned *within* Halachah.
Well, I can lein (read from a Torah scroll), but I can't "lern"/learn (study advanced texts). I was not fortunate enough to receive a day school education, and I can't imagine that I'll ever catch up. In that regard, you are very fortunate, and I envy your ability to hold your own in a "machloket" (disagreement on a matter of Jewish law--I hope that's an accurate "translation"). Kol hakavod (roughly translated, "my respects").
How can we take it upon ourselves to deny access to the Torah to God's own daughters? Isn't that a hutzpah?
I find it insulting when someone says to me, "So what if you can't do such-and-such a thing as an Orthodox woman? There are so many more important things you could be doing. You don't need to do that."
Mind you, I'm not trying to attack anyone here. I'm responding not to a *person* but to an *attitude* that I find patronizing, condescending and insulting. Not to mention unfair.
I have gone to Shira Hadasha and I'm an active member of my women's tefilla group, Shirat Sara. In the interests of full disclosure, I am also a member of Women of the Wall (and no, I am not inviting discussion of that group on this site). I have seen women weep with joy -- sob to the point where they cannot speak -- when they see the inside of a Torah scroll for the first time. I cannot help but believe that such tears are pleasing to God. Also, I have heard them say that hearing women's voices raised in prayer to God has made a deep impression upon them and spurred them to increase their own spiritual activity.
Here's a fourth option to add to the three given above: Within halakhah, work for change.
Rahel, welcome to my blog. I'm always happy to get new readers.
I've always considered it a great privilege to read from the sefer Torah (sefer=scroll) itself, rather than just from a chumash (Torah and haftarot in printed-book form). It pains me that so many Orthodox women are deprived of this privilege. I hope that one day every Jew will be able to experience this joy.
I strongly recommend that you check out http://outofstepjew.blogspot.com/, the blog of the Out of Step Jew from Kfar Saba. He's had some interesting posts about women in Modern Orthodox Judaism, especially since his daughter became Bat Mitzvah recently.
Post a Comment
<< Home