(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.
Labels: Kol Isha