Judaism- An Introduction, page 11
THREE ‘JEWISH WOMEN’
Mrs Middle (of-the-road) Orthodox lives in Manchester. She is married and likely to remain so. She has two children who attend local state schools. She sends her children to a Jewish Sunday school but she herself is not a very regular attender at synagogue. She makes a point of attending the Jewish New Year and the Day of Atonement and when members of her immediate or extended family are involved in a special occasion. In synagogue, she sits in the women’s gallery from where she can see the men leading the service, including the prayers and, on Sabbath morning and festivals, the reading from the Torah. Her synagogue belongs to the United Synagogue and some of the other women there attend regularly. She keeps to kosher meat at home, but when eating out or with non-Jewish friends she does not worry about food restrictions. She celebrates Passover with a special meal each year. She goes out to work, leads a busy social life, and is involved in a local charity. Being Jewish is important to her and she hopes that her children will marry a Jewish partner, as she did. She would have particular difficulty in accepting a non-Jewish wife for her son, even if she liked her personally. Unless the daughter-in-law converted to Orthodox Judaism (a demanding process), the grandchildren would not be judged Jewish.
Mrs Ultra-Orthodox lives in Stamford Hill and has a large family as do nearly all her Jewish neighbours. Being married and having children is what she regards as by far her most important role, though she also goes out to work. She had a full-time Jewish education and she sends her children to a Jewish school. She prays and studies regularly, adheres to the food laws strictly, and observes the festivals. She keeps the rules of family purity which means no marital intimacy during menstruation and for the week afterwards, followed by bathing in a ritual bath. She covers her hair except when alone with her husband. She is not really worried about any of her children ‘marrying out’ as they have little social contact with non-Jews. The oldest one, for instance, works for a firm which employs mainly Ultra-Orthodox Jews.
Mrs Reform lives in north-west London. She has two children who go to a state school. She lives some distance from a synagogue but has started to go more regularly since her elder daughter has become more interested. Her younger daughter is less keen and has mainly non-Jewish friends. One in particular looks likely to become her partner. She would prefer her daughter not to ‘marry out’, though her own sister did, much to their own mother’s dismay. She sets aside Friday evening for a special family meal and visits her Jewish relatives back in Liverpool for Passover and the New Year. Her mother belongs to an Orthodox synagogue, but Mrs Reform finds her own services more meaningful. There, many of the prayers are in English rather than Hebrew and she agrees with the way in which the women in her synagogue take an active part in the reading and prayers. She has even heard mention that their next rabbi could well be a woman.
This sort of popular presentation should not be pressed too far, but it does bring to light the main points of difference. They are: status, that is, matters of birth, conversion, marriage, and divorce; public worship, that is, matters of reading the Torah and saying (or singing) the prayers; and family life, that is, matters of raising a family, education, and employment. Many of these require treatment in specific chapters later in this book. For example, some of the public worship matters, such as the language of prayers, will be better considered in the chapters on Prayer and Synagogue. Questions about ritual purity and the role of the Jewish Courts in determining who is a Jew fall more naturally into the chapter on Marriage. A number of interrelated considerations should, however, be raised at this point.
WOMEN READING THE TORAH
The drive for sexual equality has naturally not been confined to non-Orthodox Judaism. Currently, the question of whether women can become rabbis is exercising the minds of some neo-Orthodox congregations, especially in the US. The answer will largely depend on how the role of the contemporary rabbinate is perceived. Is it to make decisions on Jewish laws, to function as a teacher and communal leader, or to perform the tasks of a religious functionary? Whether the rabbinical role for a woman is found to be compatible with the halakhah is still being explored. Meanwhile both in the US and in Britain, there are small groups of women who want to adhere to halakhic requirements and yet find the male-dominated Orthodox service unsatisfactory. They have, therefore, established services for women only. There was a particular difficulty in Britain when the court of the Chief Rabbi intervened to stop two services which had been approved by an Orthodox rabbi at his synagogue in north-west London. The difficulty lay in the fact that the women wanted to read from the sefer Torah (‘Torah scroll’). Such a public reading, with the attendant blessings, requires a quorum which in Orthodoxy is ten men. The media at the time had a field day, as they do with any disputes especially among religious people. So the Independent on 25 November 1992 carried the headline ‘Women-only worship splits Orthodox Jews’ and quoted another rabbi supporting the ban as saying: ‘In my view, this has more to do with feminism than religious fervour, and, as such, must be treated with scepticism.’ Unfortunately, the newspaper reports did not explain the sefer Torah difficulty on this occasion, leaving the general reader with the impression that women are not allowed to have their own meetings for prayer. This is obviously not the case, as in an Ultra-Orthodox seminary women hold prayer services alone.
Such meetings are now part of the British structure, those in synagogues under the aegis of the Chief Rabbi scrupulously following the halakhah by omitting the few elements of the liturgy that require a quorum. In a few American centres, the reading of the Torah is included, but the lack of an overall authority for American Orthodoxy makes it easier for individual rabbis to sanction new departures than in Britain. There is division of opinion among Orthodox Jews about how far some of these issues, including women only reading the sefer Torah and even women leading prayer in public, are based on sound halakhic usage and how far simply on custom.
A development in Britain has been the ‘Jewish Women’s Network’ which is intended as a forum for dialogue between Jewish women of every description. As one of its Reform members, Rabbi Sheila Shulman, put it at the network’s inception in 1993: ‘There will be change if women begin to want real change’, but, she added: ‘I don’t know how elastic Orthodox Judaism can be.’ Time will tell whether women’s prayer groups are a dangerous aberration, possibly leading, rather ironically, to totally segregated worship or a universally accepted means of spiritual inspiration.
The discontent among Orthodox Jewish women certainly attracted attention from the British Chief Rabbi, in a national review which he commissioned when he assumed office and which reported in 1994. Many voiced their criticisms of, among other things: family orientation which, they said, excludes unmarried women, single parents, and widows; women’s participation in synagogue life being largely confined to catering; and an Orthodox woman being regarded as still married if her husband refuses her a religious divorce, even if she has been granted a civil one (see Chapter 9). In 2009 a report entitled Connection, Continuity, and Community: British Jewish Women Speak Out reflected some progress on ways of securing a religious divorce from a recalcitrant husband. It spoke of the Chief Rabbi’s pre-nuptial agreement, though not as yet enforceable under English civil law, as ‘a helpful educational tool’. The Family Law Group of the Board of Deputies is giving evidence to the Law Commission, which is examining the possibility of introducing legislation which would make pre-nuptial agreement legally enforceable. Its report is due in 2012.
EXEMPTION FROM POSITIVE TIME-BASED MITZVOT
The matter of whether women can count in a quorum or lead prayers is another area where it is not always clear whether it is custom or halakhah which is preventing change. Though the Bible presents such strong women as Miriam, Deborah, and Esther, biblical society was clearly patriarchal. The woman was created to be man’s helper and she was to obey him (Genesis 3:16). Rules about her role are not given let alone defined, but by the time the Torah was being discussed it was assumed that her main role lay in raising a family rather than in any public sphere. She was not expected to do anything which might interfere with the responsibilities of motherhood. She was, therefore, exempt from positive mitzvot (obligations) which had to be carried out at a specific time of day in a public place. Time-based mitzvot which could be carried out at home (such as fasting on the Day of Atonement and eating unleavened bread at Passover) were obligatory for women as were all negative mitzvot (Kiddushin 1:7). The main time-bound positive mitzvah from which women were exempt was the obligation to pray in the evening, the morning, and the afternoon. Though a man could pray at home, it was judged to be better to pray with a minyan (‘quorum’), the smallest communal unit. (The Rabbis took the words: ‘The glory of a king is a multitude of people’ (Proverbs 14:28) to mean that the more people there were gathered for prayer, the greater the homage paid to God.) A minyan was judged to be ten males over the age of 13 (Berakhot 21b). Men, therefore, had this obligation, since they were not prevented from fulfilling it by home responsibilities. Certain clothing also had to be worn by men at specific prayer times, but again women were exempt (Kiddushin 34a).
These are the rules which still govern Orthodox practice. A woman may pray in a synagogue at specific times, but she is not obliged to. Because she is not obliged, she may not count in a minyan of those who are obliged, nor may she lead others who are fulfilling their obligation. The talmudic principle is that only a person who is himself obligated to perform a mitzvah may perform that mitzvah on behalf of someone else (Berakhot 20b). There are also laws of modesty which some cite against women leading the prayers. The thought is that a woman’s voice and appearance might distract a man from his prayers. Considering ‘the dignity of the community’ (Megillah 23a) is also what lies behind women not being allowed to read from the Torah scroll – even when there is a minyan present, though interestingly this same talmudic passage makes plain that a woman is eligible to read. Being a rabbi or a cantor is thus, at present, ruled out in Orthodox Judaism. From the non-Orthodox viewpoint, new circumstances dictate that customs or even laws for which reasons were firmly based in a past patriarchal society must be abandoned. Each Reform synagogue is autonomous in deciding its practices. In many, but by no means all, women lead the prayers and read from the Torah. Women are counted in a minyan (judged to be desirable but not essential in Reform) and wearing such garments as a prayer shawl is optional practice for them as it is for Reform men. (It is, however, an expectation in Reform that men wear the prayer shawl and some argue that the logic of equality means that this should be matched by the same expectation for women.) There is no balcony or area for women to sit separately from men. Since 1975 in Britain, women have become rabbis, though there was at first some fear of internal dissension about this.
Reform Jews also question (as do some Orthodox Jews) whether, in fact, in Second Temple Judaism women played no part in public worship. That this was so in the Temple itself is not debated.
Women clearly were not priests. Indeed, they could not get anywhere near where sacrifices were offered, being confined to the outer court, which lay beyond both the men’s court and the priests’ court. There is evidence, however, that in the synagogue women were treated more equally than later, when they were seated separately from men and that they took a larger part in the actual service. So, maintains Hyam Maccoby: ‘Only a growth in prudishness and concern for decorum led to these changes in the synagogue, as they did in the Christian churches …’ (Judaism in the First Century, Sheldon Press, 1989). Stefan Reif, examining Hebrew prayer (see Chapter 10), draws attention also to medieval texts which indicate that women could take upon themselves mitzvot from which they were exempt (such as wearing specific items during prayer), counting in a minyan, and not only reading from the Torah but also reciting the blessing.
THE PUBLIC ROLE OF WOMEN
It is, however, anachronistic simply to label Orthodox practice ‘sexist’. Its assumptions may be regarded as ‘sexist’ by those who do not share them, but in its origins the differentiation between the public role of the man and the private role of the woman, both of them religious roles, was not designed to express any notion of female inferiority. Nor does it centre on whether women should go out to work. The average Ultra-Orthodox woman, as we have indicated, does so, though she is not obliged to and is unlikely to when her children are young. Moreover, there is a proud tradition from rabbinic times of the woman being the breadwinner, enabling the man to study. The crux of the matter lies in the Jewish emphasis on marriage and procreation. If understood as rabbinic duties, then they are the most important role for a woman. If an altogether different starting point is adopted, which rests on men and women having open to them not only equal religious roles but identical ones, then the Orthodox position is misguided.
The real tension is for Orthodox women who respect not only the halakhah but also the practice (‘the way their parents did it’), yet who feel deprived of an involvement in synagogue life which they feel would enhance and not detract from any more private role that they may have. They are no longer satisfied with the argument that, if anything, the woman’s religious role in Judaism is greater than the man’s because the home is where Jewish values are transmitted and where many observances are carried out. The dilemma is a real one and one which at key points is not limited to Jewish women. It involves the very issue of time and priorities which the ancient Rabbis perhaps perceived with their exemption of women from positive time-bound mitzvot. If the home is the vital source of Jewish learning, is even Jewish identity threatened by women taking on other public responsibilities? Some believe that it is. So Blu Greenberg who recognizes the different positions of women who have a young family and those who have not:
Maintaining the exemption for mothers of young … will achieve several things: halakhically, it will be more continuous with the past and it will allay oft-voiced fears that tefillah [prayer] would interfere with family tasks. More important, it will turn the categorical gender exemption from something negative for women, as it is now, to something more positive. It will make a subtle yet powerful statement about the holiness of raising a family, which for a few crucial years can take precedence over the mitzvah of prayer.
(On Women and Judaism, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1981)
And H.H. Donin:
It is the woman who usually determines the spiritual character of the home. It is the mother who is most often called upon to answer her children’s daily questions. It is the extent of the mother’s faith, the strength of her values and beliefs, that plays the dominant role in shaping the spiritual character of the next generation.
(To Raise A Jewish Child, Basic Books, 1977)
The last paragraph quoted, however, might lead others to the very opposite conclusion. Reform feels that it has the answer by allowing each woman to decide how best her faith, and the faith of her family if she has one, may be strengthened.
* * *
Insight
As with other issues dividing Orthodox from non-Orthodox Jews, it is important to hear the viewpoints of those within their respective traditions. Understanding religion seldom results from listening only to those who denigrate one position or another or those who are quick to label it from outside the religion.
* * *
Conservative Judaism
A BREAKAWAY FROM REFORM
The difficulty of balancing the demands of tradition and modernity is exemplified in Conservative Judaism, not least in its views on women’s position in the synagogue. Conservative Judaism may be said to have a foot in both Orthodox and Reform camps, affirming the Orthodox position on observing the halakhah and the Reform view on the importance of critical scholarship and belief. It began as a breakaway from the emergent Reform movement in Germany when, in 1845, Rabbi Zacharias Frankel insisted that Hebrew be the language of the liturgy. In 1854, Frankel became the first head of the Jewish Theological Seminary of Breslau. A similar reaction to radical Reform occurred in the US and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America was established in 1886. Appointed its president in 1902 was Solomon Schechter (1848–1915). Under his leadership, Conservative Judaism became an umbrella for a wide range of traditional Jewish opinion. He resisted any break with accepted halakhah and with the prayer book of neo-Orthodoxy. The seminary was thus able to train rabbis to serve both Orthodox and Conservative congregations.
A BREAKAWAY FROM CONSERVATISM
This situation changed, however, when one of the seminary teachers, Mordecai Kaplan, began treating all halakhah as if it were simply minhag (‘custom’) and presenting Judaism as an evolving religious civilization rather than a supernaturally revealed religion. In his Guide to Jewish Ritual, Kaplan taught that group survival and individual expression should control ritual and not vice versa. A great advocate of equality between the sexes, he created the Bat Mitzvah ceremony (see Chapter 8). Between 1945 and 1963, a range of prayer books was produced which eliminated such concepts as a chosen people and a personal Messiah. Their 1994 prayer book does not refer to God but rather to the ‘Compassionate One’, the ‘Infinite’, or the ‘Eternal’. This movement is known as Reconstructionism and it is estimated to make up between 1 and 2 per cent of the Jewish community in the US, where it is quite active and has a Reconstructionist organization of congregations and a rabbinical college.
