Volume 18 Number 77 Produced: Sat Mar 11 23:27:08 1995 Subjects Discussed In This Issue: Putting the Cart before the Horse [Hayim Hendeles] Where should we focus? [Zvi Weiss] Wine, Women and Song [Jeff Korbman] Women & Judaism [Aryeh Blaut] Women and Megillah [Joel Kurtz] Women's Zimmun [Shlomo H. Pick] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <hayim@...> (Hayim Hendeles) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:15:49 -0800 Subject: Putting the Cart before the Horse A previous poster commented: >However, these explanations, it seems to me, beg the question... >Is it an absolute and eternal religious desideratum that the >religious roles of women be private, and private only? If so, >one cannot argue with the reasoning above. However, if one >believes, as I do, that the place of women in religious society ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >is subject to modification based on the cultural nuances of >different times and places, ... This statement underscores what is, IMHO, a significant problem with the so called "Modern Orthodox" - viz. approaching halacha with preconceived biases and opinions. There is a major difference between approaching the Torah from an unbiased standpoint, vs. approaching it to find support for your beliefs. This latter approach, so prevalent in our modern society, undermines the entire relationship between the Jewish people and G-d; for we are supposed to be "avdei hashem" [servants of G-d] and not vice-versa. Unfortunately, the Torah is not interested in your opinions nor is the Torah interested in my opinions. G-d did not consult us before he wrote the Torah. The question we must ask is "What does G-d want?" --- and NOT "where can I find a basis in G-d's Torah to support my opinion". Hayim Hendeles ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 21:36:48 -0500 Subject: Where should we focus? I have a question for Ms. Gordon (and anyone else...). Why the focus on halachic areas that seem pretty well-established (such as Zimun...). I beleive that a far more critical issue is that we are unable to avail our- selves of the KNOWLEDGE and expertise of women (this list is an important exception). Unless one holds like those schools of thought that women are to be kept deliberately ignorant (and I do not know if anyone on this list DOES hold like that...), we should, perhaps, be thinking whether all this knowledge that women finally do get a chance to learn goes to waste... I am aware that there are always Tzniut issues of women (or A woman) speaking before men (although I am not at all clear why men do not have the reverse problem....). Even so, I think that there are proper and acceptable ways of allowing women to interact with men as BOTH gain greater knowledge. Even if the woman is not a "formal rabbi", there is much that can be gained in this sort of discussion. The archtype, of course, is B'ruriah -- who certainly appeared to "hold her own" (and -- yes -- I know what RASHI is quoted as saying happened to her; I also recall that RASHI gave no source AND I have serious problems with R. Meir's role in RASHI's story...). On another note, there was an article in (oh oh) Yated Ne'eman [I know, I know...] which made an interesting point. The author cited the current research that possibly implies that men and women "think differently" and related it in a direct manner to the statements of CHAZAL that -- on the one hand, "Bina Yetera Nitna Bahen" -- women have extra "Bina" while on the other hand, "Nashim -- Da'atan Kalot" -- women have less (or a lighter form) of Da'at as opposed to men (Note that according to this approach, NAshim -- Da'atan Kalot is NOT a derogatory or pejorative statement --- rather it is simply a statement of fact -- women "excell" in one area of "cognition" (?) and are "weak" in a different area). Any comments? --Zvi. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <jekorbman@...> (Jeff Korbman) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:52:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Wine, Women and Song When I first read Rudyard Kipling's remark, "A woman is just a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke", I thought it to be funny and clever. Today, I'm not so sure. Perhaps more than any other issue on mail-jewish this past year, I find the issue of Woman's Role in Judaism to be the most interesting. I find many of the entries to be especially passionate, honest and even a bit personal. As a man who was married to a very spiritiual and religious person, I would like to share some thoughts about what I have seen, heard and learned over the years. My wife (may she rest in peace) and I used to talk about Shul on Shabbat morning all the time. Type of Mechitzah; how high, women benching gomel, passing women the Torah, women giving d'var torahs from the bima etc... She pointed out to me that she believed there was a misplaced sense of importance on Shabbat morning. She was obligated to daven every day, to say brochot every day; she made it a point to learn each day as well as do acts of Chessed etc... Shabbat moring didn't have the same spotlight that it often does for some of us because she felt close to God during the week which is 6X longer. As a result, she was a bit more traditional or "right wing" in her approach. I respect that, and support the more traditional approach if a given women is content with the historical role that she has had over the years. But what if she's not. I have been reading these posting and I can't keep from laughing. Here we have all these rules. Tons and tons of rules. The less sophisticated call them "Torah", the more sophisticated will identify where a law is from (Biblical, Talmud, Responsa) or whether it be Minhag, and whose (Ashkenazik, Sefardic etc..) But what they all have in common is that they have been analyzed, interpreted and taught by the same gender: men. Do you think for a moment that if women had a say in the composition of the siddur you'd find a "shelo asani isha" juxtaposed to a "Sheasini Kirsono" bracha? My wife was very traditional, and I know many Agudah affiliated traditional women. Sure, some would say that's the way it should be. But do you really believe that if women had a say, the result would be the same. And that's just one example. Instead, we engage in religious gymnastics. We have all these rules that men have written, they are our tradition and have ensured our continuity. Good. However, they're the work of one gender, and now we have these debates because another gender has a voice and is now able to articulate their thoughts. Do we simply squash them and wave the banner of "torah" and "tradition". We can, and many do. But I have news for them: Unless we strip women of the right to go to college, to study, to compete in the marke place and relegate their minds to making challah, raising children and studying Novi - this issue is not going to fade away like a mail-jewish topic of the month. (BTW, I in no way diminish the role of a parent at home, as a single father I am fully aware of its importance - there's just a lot more to life for me in addition to being a parent or spouse) My wife covered her hair. She felt that to be important, both in her relationship with God and in the message it sent in her home. I agreed and backed her up all the way. But what happens when the very thought completely turns a women off to yiddishkeit? Do we give her the old cliche': Sorry, but dems the rules? And what gender decided that one. Usually when I mention the "hair covering" one, the "right" responds by saying: Sure, and next if Shabbos turns someone off maybe they should forgo that as well. Nice but irrelevant point. One is a gender based mitzvah, one is not; one is Rabbinical (with the exception of the Trumas HaDeshen who's says haircovering is Biblical) and Shabbat is Biblical. It fascinated me, when discussing the passing around the Torah to the women's section, that someone was concerned about negiah. Negiah, touching, prohibited because it might lead to "mixed dancing" - so to speak. That Negiah? Does this person truley belive that NEGIAH - and more importantly, what it is intended to prevent - is an issue between the Chazzan holding a sefer Torah and a woman, Shabbos moring, in Shul, with 11 - hundreds of people standing around in the same sanctuary while singing Romemu?. That Negiah? Is it simply the principle? And is the principle - determined by men - more important then the people for whom it is intended? Weren't the WOMEN the ones at Sinai not the ones to participate in the Golden Calf! Perhaps THEY ARE THE ONES better fit to receive the Torah, and maybe we should be coming to them to pass it around the men's section! (I know I'm exaggerating, but you get the point - it's just that the Negiah comment is - i belive - an exaggeration in the other direction). I applaud the women who have written, and post their opinions. I especially loved the point made by one that she beautifully chanted the Torah/Haftorah which made the entire shul quite and attentive, mentionioning that afterall, Hashem gave her a voice to use to serve Him. (or maybe I'm just tired of men getting maftir who have lousy voices, poor articulation but give money attempt to sing the Haftorah). I am saddened by the fact that many still feel the need to offer apologetic reponses to their side in the name of tradition, while wonder what Judaism would be like if they had the same presence years ago as they are establishing today. ________________________________________ This morning, I was reading about the cognitive differences in the way men and women use their brains. It was a fascinating article. The nice thing about the research is that the motive is to explore the difference; not for one gender to determine how the other should use theirs'. Perhaps we would see more seforim from women like Nechama Leibowitz's work on the Torah, appreciate the perspective of thousands and thousands of additional minds on Jewish issues, and thereby come closer to G-d if we made avenues for women to learn, write, teach and participate in Judaism to the extent that they deemed necessary. (After all, whose Judaism is it anyway?) And for those who think this is way too radical, and tradition / status quo must be maintained: how many of you rode your horses to work this morning? Jeff ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <AryehBlaut@...> (Aryeh Blaut) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:13:03 -0500 Subject: Women & Judaism It seems that there isn't a volume of mail-jewish being posted that something about "Women & Judaism" hasn't been a feature. In last week's issue of Yated Neeman (Week ending 17 Adar I (Feb 17), there is an article by Rabbi Abraham Hoffenberg titled: "The Wiles of Feminism". He starts by quoting VaYikra 26:42 (Numbers) and the Sifra. The verse speaks of Hashem stating that He will remember His covenant with Yaakov, Yitzchok & Avraham. The Sifra asks about the Imaos (foremothers). He (the Sifra) states that we know from the extra words "es". The author of the article asks the question: "If the Torah looks at the z'chus of our mothers as equal to that of our fathers, why does it not mention their names specifically? Why does it cloak them with an "es"?" The answer that Rabbi Hoffenberg offers is that it is a remez (hint) to tznius ("modisty"). He devolpes this idea (much better than I could summarize). He calls attention to how different things would be if it weren't for Sara, Rivka, Rachel & Leah as well as the women of Egypt, all of whom "worked behind the scenes". He shows, in the article, that tznius is not something negative, rather it is kedusha (holiness). He ends the piece with the following paragraph: "No wonder, then, that the Vilna Gaon said--as cited by Rav Elya Svei, Philadelphia Rosh Yeshiva, in his keynote message at the Agudah national convention two years ago--that for women, the equivalent of Torah tavlin (the antidote to the Yetzer hora given to men encapsulated in the study of Torah) is devotion to the middah of tznius." I think that the question of women in Judaism is no different than any other question one has about Yiddishkite. Unless one totally understands all of the sources, one will have unanswered questions. But as one of my teachers in Yeshiva said, "you don't die from an unanswered question". Aryeh Blaut (<aryehblaut@...>) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joel Kurtz <kurtzj@...> Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 14:29:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Women and Megillah Eli Passow's note on this subject puzzles me. Although I am in favour of women reading megillah for women or men, his note appears to minimize the problem. Am I incorrect in believing that the halachic difficulty is much greater with regard to a woman reading megillah than for a woman reading a haftara, for example? Joel Kurtz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shlomo H. Pick <F12013@...> Date: Sun, 05 Mar 95 09:00 O Subject: Women's Zimmun This is a copy of a note I sent to Prof. A. Frimer and upon his suggestion I am sending it in to mail-jewish: Way back when - about two + years ago, the issue came up of men present at woman zimun. To me it was pashut that i could stay and i did not leave and i even answered. When my daughter got engaged, he raised the issue and asked R. Shlomo Zalman personally upon taking him to shacharitit one morning and R. Shlomo Zalman praised the custom and told me to him stay and answer. I also asked R. Elyashiv who verbally allowed me to stay and answer. Since there is a lot of disagreement according to prevalent custom and at first my daughters resisted (my wife to this day only answers but refuses to lead as she doesn't like "fremde zachim" = strange things). As they only do it from the start because I insisted upon it, and if I were to change my mind or be convinced that it was wrong and stop them, then they would simply stop the practice. Hence, it was natural without their asking me, to start the zimun "Birshut Avi Mori" as without my o.k. the whole practice is chucked out. shlomo ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 18 Issue 77