Suffrage Remains a Critical Issue
The issue of dignity goes much deeper. Specifically, our modern sense of human dignity involves
sharing in making the decisions which fundamentally affect our lives. The halacha denies women
any self-determination in the definition of their
Jewish duties. Men decided and continue to define
for Jewish women their proper religious role.
Rackman remains unfazed by this for he can conceive of a woman sage whose dicta might help
change certain rules concerning women. I do not
understand how this is possible. If the Torah's
relatively immutable norm is "the communal role
of males and the domestic role of women," a
woman could only be a sage in domestic matters.
Rackman and many less flexible Orthodox Jews
find it difficult to understand that modern Jews
overwhelmingly abandoned the halacha as much
from their lack of confidence in the system as
from their hedonism or lack of self-respect. (And
the Conservative Jewish effort to solve this problem has not found a way to restore law as discipline.) The classic instance of the law's incapacity, for all that it is a cliche, remains the agunah
(the woman unable to get a divorce). Long before
Reform Judaism and feminism, that is, long before
their decisions could be excused by their passion to
protect the law, the sages did not act decisively to
modify or render inoperative, a legal structure
which they admittedly found deeply troubling. Individual decisors made heroic efforts to free agunot but, with slight modification, the law in this
area operates today as it did centuries ago and we
continue to have agunot among us.
Why Liberalism Remains Potent
Compare that conservatism with the magnificent
creativity which enabled Jews to participate in an
economic system based on taking interest, though
lending on interest to a Jew is a horrendous sin.
They devised an ingenious form of partnership
which accomplishes the same end by halachically
permissible means. Why did the halachic system
work so responsively in one case but not in the
other? If, with Rackman, we take society as our
model, most moderns would say that the sages
responded, as legislators and executives regularly
do, to those with power in their culture. Men with
money have clout; women who have been taught to
be content with what their considerate husbands,
fathers, brothers and rabbis extend to them, do
not. To me and others, that is a significant inequality indeed and we anticipate that, for all their
pain at agunot the sages will keep attending to
more important matters.
140
If Jewish law is indeed largely the work of human
beings, then it is intolerable that we do not change
it in this respect. Other Orthodox spokesmen see
this. That is why they insist that ours is not largely
a human but a Divine law. For them, to change
the Jewish legal status of women infringes on what
God has asked of loyal Jews, as sacrificial as this
faith may seem to outsiders. We liberals rather see
Jewish law as a continuing human effort to articulate ways to serve God in our lives. We believe
that an older, now obviously inadequate understanding of what God wants of " a l l " us Jews must
be replaced with one that grants the fullest possible
equality to women in Judaism, including the right
to participate as equals in the discussion and resolution of this matter. •
"Inscribe me in your book"
Susan Handelman
There was once a certain Jewish woman who, having done and suffered much for her people, wanted
her story to be memorialized. She asked the rabbis
of her generation to write and make it public, but
they argued against so doing; she replied that her
story was already told and recorded amongst the
non-Jews. Finally, the rabbis agreed to include her
story, and so we have it today: the Book of Esther. "Esther's ordinance validated these regulations for Purim; and it was recorded in the book"
(Esther 9:32). This verse provokes the question,
Exactly what was recorded and in what book?
Rashi answers that Esther requested the sages of
her generation to " f i x , " i.e. commemorate her,
and include this book (the megillah) among the
other sacred writings. The Talmud (Meg. 7a)
notes: "Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Esther sent
to the sages, 'Establish me for all time.' They sent
back, 'Do you seek to arouse the jealousy of the
nations against us?' She sent them: 'I am already
inscribed in the chronicle of Media and Persia'."
;
J
i
j
j
i
j
i i
||
j
t
1
j*
j
t
I
j
j
!
I begin with this story because the debate between
Rackman and Borowitz is also about inscribing
Jewish women in the Book; about telling their
story fully, including their works and deeds in the
official canons and ceremonies. It is also about the
fears of the rabbis of our generation, fears that
clanger will come to the Jews if this is done, that
the outside threatens. With Esther, this was not the :
case; the book about this woman, named after
her—not named megillat Mordechai—was added to
SUSAN HANDELMAN teaches English and Jewish Studies at the University of Maryland and is a
Contributing Editor of Sh 'ma.
the sacred canon, the Holy Torah, and has for centuries brought "light, joy, and gladness" to the
Jewish people.
"Sinai" or "God's word;" the larger issue is how
the voice from Sinai speaks and continues echoing,
and how it is to be heard.
Confronting the Rabbis of Our Day
Distinguishing Revelation from Culture
Now both Rackman and Borowitz agree that there
is both a divine and an historical and human element in halachic development; both appeal to history and both appeal to "essential" Jewish
values—human dignity, equality, justice, reason.
But Rackman argues the thesis that when injustice
and insensitivity are found, "the halacha itself is
not to be faulted—rather most of those who claim
to be its standard-bearers." Borowitz maintains, on
the other hand, that there is a fundamental flaw in
the halachic system epitomized by its attitudes towards women; the challenge of feminism, then, is
part of the larger challenge of modernity.
Now did indeed "Sinai" mandate the communal
role for men and the domestic role for women—or
was this rabbinic interpretation based on social
practice? Does the voice of Sinai say to women,
"Thou shalt be domestic"? Rackman's rhetoric
again is revealing and disturbing. The communal/domestic distinction, he argues, is the "immutable ideal" though "deviations" (i.e. the nondomestic woman) may be "tolerated," but not
sanctioned. To what may the matter be compared?
Homosexuality, answers Rackman: heterosexuality
is the Torah's ideal, and though homosexuals
ought not to be discriminated against, they ought
not to be approved of. One need be no Freudian
analyst to note the disturbing implications of this
analogy: a non-domestic female is an aberrant
transgressor, a distortion of her sex. That Rackman
discusses the participation of women in the power
of the communal sphere in terms of controlling
sexuality is also telling.
I have my agreements and disagreements with
each. Most of all, I wonder just what Rackman
thinks is the cause of prevailing halachic rigidity,
"the intransigence of most of its champions"? Can
we so simply and conveniently distinguish "the
system" from those who articulate, profess, and
live by it? Or as the poet Yeats asked in another
context, "Who can know the dancer from the
dance?" If those who are intransigent are being influenced by or maintaining distorted and latentiy
sexist views, one must ask if this has happened in
the past and if, in fact, these distortions have
woven themselves into the very fabric of halacha.
But Rackman's very rhetoric evades the question.
For example, in discussing the obligation to go to
war, he argues that historical social practice always
exempted women. We must remember, however,
that those who made the decisions and had the
power in this "history" and "society" were
male—"historical practice" itself is by no means
an abstract universal but itself gender specific. Few
societies, he continues have wanted to change this
practice, and "halacha saw no point in changing it
either. From Sinai there was ready acceptance of
much human usage." This slippery shifting in
terms from "history" to "halacha to "Sinai" persists throughout his essay, but what happens to the
halachists? "Sinai" is invoked as a disembodied
source of certain distinctions; "Sinai" is said to
have posited as an ideal "The communal role of
males and the domestic role of females." That is,
whenever Rackman is arguing to preserve the status quo, he invokes the name "Sinai;" whenever
he describes or admits problems, he blames intransigent halachists. Here, alas, is not the place to
probe the complicated question of the meaning of
141
The simple opposition communal/domestic is another set of vague terms which cry for more precise definition. Clearly, women have been intensively involved in Jewish communal affairs since
Sarah and Abraham "gathered all the souls that
they had gotten in Haran." Says Rashi, "Abraham
proselytized the men and Sara proselytized the
women." Or since Sara argued with Abraham to
send away Hagar, God agreed, and told Abraham,
"In everything Sara tells you listen to her voice"
(Gen. 21:12).
One might argue, though, that this was purely a
family or "domestic" affair; but precisely what the
Genesis stories teach us is that the family, the
domestic sphere is the communal, the spiritual, the
political sphere. These family squabbles, and those
in which Rebekkah, Leah, and Rachel also engaged determined the line of blessing, identity and
destiny of the Jewish people. And, conversely, the
communal, the synagogue, is also the domestic;
the house where the larger Jewish family gathers.
Even the awesome Temple was itself called BeithaMikdash—the house of God. As Chassidic
sources stress, the Jew's function is to make a
dirah lo b'tachtonim a "dwelling place for God
below," a home. In other words, Jewish spirituality is a "domestic" spirituality. The domestic
sphere as a self enclosed, isolated, totally private
world of women is not a Jewish ideal.
Equality but not Homogenization
What Rackman apparently means is that the synagogue is the province of men; the home that of
women. I do not wish here to repeat all the arguments about the participation of women in the synagogue which Borowitz reiterates so well. But I do
want to agree with one of Rackman's points and
pose it as a question to Borowitz. For though I
seem to have collapsed the distinction between
communal and domestic, my purpose is not to argue that '"equality" means absence of all distinctions. Rackman makes an important point in asserting that equality does necessarily mean identical
obligation; that is, everybody does exactly the
same thing. How might obligations be different but
equal?
The problem is that we need a more precise definition of what "equality" means. Distinctions and
differences are not inherently unjust; it depends on
their rationale and goal, on how these differences
are used. There are differences between a flute and
a violin; they can be combined to make a beautiful
sound. There is a form of identity which negates
all difference, and a kind of identity which is enriched through difference, through complementarity. Complementarity, however, means that one
side of the contrast is not devalued at the expense
of the other—that there is a mutual interplay, a polyphony instead of a monotone, not one voice muffling the others.
Recent feminist theory has moved beyond the ideal
of androgyny to an attempt to define and preserve
"the difference," the uniquely feminine. I, too,
am suspect of the identity that negates difference,
and so must analyze further Borowitz's argument
that "Western civilization has claimed ethical attention by universalizing the biblical doctrine of
equality of all people." Post-modern thought,
though, has also turned a critical eye on the
universalizing tendencies of Enlightenment rationalism. For universalizing can become totalizing, that
is, can also mean obliteration of unique identities
and differences—just as Napoleon offered the Jews
enfranchisement, "liberty, equality, fraternity," at
the cost of renouncing particular Jewish identity.
Borowitz argues that social and historical practice
need to be questioned—including, I would add,
even certain modern secular notions. The modern
values: the self autonomy, freedom, self- determination, self-expression, pluralism, and the suspicion of authority. Yet is the purpose of halacha
"to express the self' or to serve God? Or, how
does halacha make possible one through the other?
Is religious equality to be modelled on secular po-
142
litical equality? Does it mean numerically equal
mitzvot, equal opportunity for religious expression,
or service of God?
What Words are Commanded Us "Today?"
In sum, though differences can and have been used
to repress and degrade, I want to argue that differences ought to be maintained as well, or else one
blots out the uniquely feminine, just as one blots
out the uniquely Jewish. Yet how can the uniquely
feminine and the uniquely Jewish be brought together? I do not pretend to have any easy answers,
but it certainly cannot be when the uniquely
Jewish—Jewish worship, Jewish learning, Jewish
community are defined as male provinces.
Irving Greenberg has written—and I agree with
.j
him—that the desire of women to participate more j
fully in Jewish life is misperceived by the Orthodox rabbinate as another manifestation of heretical
secularism and assimilationist tendencies; on the
contrary, it is part of a post-modern, postassimilationist move, a recognition that in many
respects modernity has failed us, a desire to return
to the sources, to Jewish particularity. If the problem is as Rackman argues—the intransigence of
defenders of halacha—this is so, I believe, because
they do not understand the challenge of modernity;
they are still battling the haskalah (Jewish enlightenment) of the nineteenth century. It is true that
modernity has assaulted traditional Judaism. It has
been a destructive force in many ways. Yet there
is another sense in which it, too, is acting as a
channel for the echoing voice of Sinai. For what
purpose, to teach just what lesson, to reveal what
new facet of Torah, have these particular trials and
questions come to the Jewish people just now? As
some sources explain, just as the grape has to be
crushed and squeezed to give forth wine, so the
Jewish people need to endure exile to bring out a
higher essence. Galut, the Hebrew word for exile,
is thereby related to the root galah "to reveal"—in
the crucible of modernity, what new forces can be
brought forth, what new light revealed?
The rabbis relate the name Esther to the verb histir
"to hide, conceal." For God concealed his face
during that dark and difficult historical period; in
fact, His name isn't mentioned even once in the
megillah of Esther. In Judaism, woman has been
associated with concealment in many ways, with
the private as opposed to the public sphere. But
Esther was not content for her story to remain concealed; she wanted it publicly recorded, indeed included in the canon of sacred writings, sanctified
"for all time," and so she wrote to the resisting
rabbis of her generation. It is time for the resisting
I
ion,: rabbis of our generation to recognize and inscribe
• the Esthers of ours. •
isej . . .but others say about fahtma...
^
Forgetting what We Did and what They Did
ils i I was amazed by " A letter to fahtma" by Rachel
ueli, Adler in your Sept. 6, 1985 issue. I'm not a psy>- » chotherapist but the confessionary tone taken by
f«iy Ms. Adler is beyond comprehension. She is "pain] ful," she is "ashamed," etc. Since the beginning
sh I of Shivat Tion some 80 or 90 years ago, since the
I beginning of our return to Zion, we were ready for
i peace, we were creating and building. On the other
1 i side the Arabs were and still are busy by murder,
orei wars, massacres. Why apologize?
10- *
icaij The Islamic attitude toward Zionism is well
e i known. They reject totally any form of Jewish
| statehood in Palestine, a spot where Jews enjoyed
\j i their independence long before Jesus or Islam. The
killings didn't start in Lebanon and when they did
start centuries ago, we Jews were not the ones
f who did start it. What is that foolish offer of
Kaddishl
aus'
ut!
Dov Rapaport
to Woodmere, N. Y.
it
t
re
Comparing the Standards of Concern
I was sickened by the self-hate and hysteria so evident in Rachel Adler's "letter." Mrs. Adler needs
to learn more about the history, both past and
present, of the Arab-Israeli relationships. Anyone
who can prate about Gush Emunim pogroms on
the West Bank has absolutely no understanding of
the situation. Perhaps she has been reading the
i Damascus Times.
a;
g,,
jji'
J
I
a
ik
5
,
When a handful of Jewish settlers used violence in
Judea and Samaria the State of Israel arrested them
and sentenced them to long jail terms. When Arabs
in Judea and Samaria murder Jews (about 15 or 16
so far this year) just because they are Jews, all the
Arab governments praise the murderers as heroes.
Has your friend Fahtma ever expressed strongly
her disapproval of those murderers?
Arthur M. Leon
New York, N. Y.
f
Working for the Greater Healing
be
10
Dear Rachel, I dread this day too. For too long,
® i well meaning Jewish, Zionist women have bent
'
over backward to see the other side, to let the idea
of peace override all other issues of the world poi
143
k
litical scene. But when one takes on the deaths of
one's relatives, one needs to take on the deaths of
all of one's relatives, not selectively take on
deaths.
The Israelis bombed Southern Lebanon. Are those
Lebanese more dead, more to be mourned than the
hundreds of Lebanese killed by mortar fire of their
fellow Lebanese? Are those Lebanese to be
mourned more than the Israelis and Lebanese
killed at check-points by suicide missions, driven
by Lebanese? Or more than the relatives who proclaim their Judaism in Israel, and die under the
hand of the militant Arab?
Why do you beat your breast at Yom Kippur for
the treatment of the Lebanese by the Israelis, who
are trying, whether correctly or incorrectly, to prevent terrorism inside Israel; to give some of the
hundreds of relatives of yours who profess a faith
in G-d some peace within their Zionist borders.
Why not beat your breast this Yom Kippur for a
whole world gone awry; for the power-hungry who
cannot accept peace on any terms; for the loss of
trust in the meaning of words between nations; for
all the relatives who suffer the loss of loved ones
across the globe?
The repair to be made is not for Jews to feel guilty
about the loss of an Arab life, but for Jews and
Arabs to say, "Enough bloodshed on both sides."
It is time to sit down and talk meaningfully of
peace. Love your enemy, but protect your own, or
the next time it may not be your enemy's relatives
you mourn as your own, but your own.
Jacqueline Gilbert
Chicago, II.
.. .but others say about conversion...
Read the Law not your Compassion
Although it may matter little to Andrew Sacks
(Sh 'ma, Sept. 6) who officiates at a conversion as
long as mikveh (and milah for males) are included,
his view does not coincide with Israel's Orthodox
establishment. Surely he must know that conversions conducted by Reform or Conservative rabbis,
even k 'halacha, are automatically rejected not because of the process but because of the auspices.
Even a qualified Orthodox officiant cannot guarantee acceptance, according to a recent letter to the
Jerusalem Post. A couple making aliyah reported
being asked to provide additional documentation
that they slept in separate beds, brought only acceptable kosher food into their home, etc.
True, the Orthodox rabbinate cannot be faulted for
believing that all Jews should adhere to their view
of Judaism and submit to their authority. That is
the nature of orthodoxy. But let us also then recognize that given this inherent nature, their only solution for Jewish divisiveness is for non-Orthodox
forms of Judaism to go out of business. Nothing
less will satisfy the Orthodox leadership, who have
their own Khartoum formula: no recognition, no
negotiation, no peace.
Bernard H. Bloom
Schenectady, N. Y.
I didn't, I wish the authors much good luck,
kinahora.
A RABBI'S ROVINGS. Israel Mowshowitz. Ktav.
$20.
sort of international Jewish who's-who, as this
energetic representative of his people recounts
his travels of recent decades speaking to the mighty
and following the Jewish action. Happily, there is
little pulpit rhetoric and much graceful writing
though the plot may not hold your attention.
A
JESUS THE PHARISEE. Harvey Folk. Paulist.
$8.95.
FORMATIVE JUDAISM. Fifth Series. Jacob Neusner. Scholars, pb $16.95.
ews cannot resist the temptation to show that
Jesus really didn't mean to start a new religion
and certainly not to cause antagonism between his
followers and Jews. Falk wants to show that Jesus
was of Bet Hillel but the Bet Shammaites, who were
in control, were responsible for turning him over to
the Romans. Not for readers looking for academic
history.
O
J
HOW TO AVOID THE EVIL EYE.
Rosenbaum. St. Martins. $5.95.
Brenda
his collection of assorted Jewish superstitions
treats all the things Jews care about: family,
food, religion, life and death. Stuart Copans has lavishly cartooned it, adding much humor to the text.
Harold Kushner is quoted as loving it. Even though
T
144
f these collected papers, I found the one on the )
shaping of Leviticus Rabbah added most to
what I already know of Neusner's ongoing work.
Here, once again, he applies the form-critical I
method with model thoroughness, yielding interesting conclusions.
RESPONSA ON JEWISH MARRIAGE. Eugene •
Mihaly. Privately published.
•
he Reform Jews, like the Conservative and!
Orthodox Jews, are fighting, their topic being;!
rabbinic officiation at intermarriages. Here the rebbe •
of the mixed marriage protagonists uses the traditional form to radically reform the halakhic sub- • |
stance. Notable too for a lavish use of type and I
white-space. Available from the author.
T