.. REFLECTIONS ON JEWISH PRAYER
A special issue of RESPONSE devoted to the creation, expression, and
meaning ofJewish prayer. AT1icles include:
Rebecca'Trachtenberg Alpert, "A Reconstructionist Approach to Prayer"
Kerry Baker, "A Fence Around the Torah"
. Gail Berkeley , "A Convert's Road to Prayer"
Everett Gendler, "Two Contributions to Prayer"
Barry W. Holtz, "Looking at Prayer: Insights of the Hasidic Masters"
Rita Poretsky ,."Speaking of Prayer"
I
. Michael Swartz, "Models for New Prayer"
.~t Waskow , "Theater, Midrash, and Prayer"
Short stories by Howard Schwartz
. Kavanot by Hersh.el.Matt
<A Bracha, for Shabbat by Penjna Villenchik
Review~Essays by:~'
Adele Berlin on.Michael Fishbane's Text and Texture
Arnie Eisen on Art Green's Tormented Master
David Ellenson on, Art Waskow's God-Wrestling
.
FEMIN·ISTFERMENT<
Rabbi' Saul Berman, a schQlaron Jewish law; has been' widely r~coiniz~dliS4~j,rdgfe~iiv~i~,
in Orthodox circles on matters o/special concern to Jewish women~:lni9.73~e·p~bli~he#'i:,
an article in Tradition that examined complaints.voiced by OTthodox~wom~n andferrl.inists~::r"
as well as prospects for accommodating those complaints within th~fra,;uiworkof Jialaclii~'
Juaaism. Shulamith Magnus, cofounder of a traditi(mai women~s minyan. inJtia~hinito11:; .
Heights, explores with Rabbi Bermonthe issues initially r~ised' inike'Traditi~n .~rticler:
and changes that have occu"ed since then. , .
"
.
::..,
Three Areas of Discontent
Q: In the fall of 1973, your article on the stajuSOfwomenan'dff~~~1li,e.,,:,\
Judaism appeared in Tradition magazine. At that time you isolated.t~ee~r~~s:'
of discontent that many. Jewish women were .raising: (lJ ,the lack:,of·QPPoI:::,
tunities for religious and ritual expression; (2) disabilities whiChViomen:Stiffer"
in Jewish civil law, particularly marriage and divorce la~; and (3) dis~~tisfaction':.'
with being relegated to a service role, in whichwornenenable Ine~toleam":'
Torah and function communally, b~t in which w'omen are .deniedtheopI>0r~;,: .
tunity to do so themselves. There has been considerable ferrnentandde"eI6pment since 1973, so I was wondering how you would analyze the situationtoday'/'
and whether you would isolate the same three areas in the sarrie \V~ysth'a(you
did then. What changes would you say haveocqured in the last sevenyeais,
the Orthodox community?
.
'. " ,"
.:' •., ............•
A: Well, I would still certainly divide the areas ofdiscontentarI10Ilgs~:'i.,'·
those three major categories and, to a certain~xtent, I think there,has,been,~J
substantial movement in each area. Still not sufficient movement;"h~t m?vement;'
'enough to indicate that the Orthodox rabbinate afldthe Orthodox c:~¢mu:~i~rY:
have begun to take this issue much more seriously mid have, beguntOa~jusf:t9.,:
a new reality. Perhaps we could in an introductory fashion look,at~achofth~·'~'.;
are:as. Let me take them in sequence. First on the-issue of lack 0topportunity:l,
for positive religious expression...
. . '. . ... , . ; . , . . . "."
There are two levels on which I seethe religious. c;ommunity,~stiavin~;,'
begun'to adapt to a new reality. One .is in its general at:titudin~ fnlm~\Vor~.:·
I see that the community nolonger views with either distrustqr disdai,IlgroUps.;
of women gathering for Tefilla [prayer], nor the individualwornanWearill~}!\:.
Tallit [prayer shawl] at a service inShul [synagogue] .l)hinktliatpr~vi~u~tf~·.\,·
the community just did not understand what all this was aboutandWl1Y it wa~t
happening. There is now a much grea~er,degree ofunderstanding.\.Vhil~p~??IJI,j(:\·
aren't necessarily happy with thedirectiqns that these' events ~re)rH)~g'w'l: •
they're nevertheless cognizant of the reasons fOr 'suchmovement~:r:heY're~~~~:i
that: such movement is not only inevitable, but ultimately'desinlbleas,w.elL ' .
in,:
Plus:
.
ORTHODOXYR~SP()N:
.
Martha Himmelfarb on David Biale's Gershom Scholem
David Rosenberg on Stephen Mitchen's Into the Whirlwind
.-':·'i··i:~;:;\~~~;<'~·
r ';~:'t,~t<-::~';~I :.~;'
particular lever: I. think. adaptation is indicated by a number of
dE~ve:loplm(mtS; First, there has. been significant growth of women's Minyanin~
gathering together ona regular basis to share the experience
Either unofficial 'groups of women have begun to do this, or others
.have done it uridertheaegis of synagogues. In many major communiti~s all
a¢'r6ssthe U.S., there are' such groups gathering, . and they no longer excite the
kind of opposition they did five or six years ago when such groups first began
t()'gather.
I don't think jnthe future we will see men's Minyanim and women's
'Minyanim. Personally ,J see *vomen's Minyanim as a stage in the process which
will' ultimately involve a greater degree of participation and involvement by
women in the service. That will mean significant adjustments in what we see
. today as congregational and liturgical life, but I think that such adjustments
can take place fully within. the structure of Halacha [Jewish law] .
Q: '. What· specifically can you envisage women doing in a Halachically
mixed Minyan?
. A: Icould see, for example, the development of a supplement to the
readings. We currently read..from the Torah and the Prophets weekly, We do
'not, at this point, read from Ketuvim [Writings of third section of the Bible
. after~ the Torah and Prophets]. I could very well see the development of a
liturgy ofKetJvim correlated, as are the readings from the Prophets, with either
the major theme of the Parsha [weekly Torah reading] or with the special
character of a particular day, with those selections from Ketuvim to be done
~y women.
'Q: Why W9uld that be accept~ble and why would it not be acceptabJe
for women to participate. in the reading of the Torah and the Haftorah [Prophets' portion] ?
A: Well, the Halachic problems involved in having women read from the
Torah,while not necessarily insurmountable, would undoubtedly be substantially divisive, and so I wouldn't see anything of that sort happening, at least
not in. the foreseeable'·future. The Halach,ic problems involved in having an
,.jI1d~perident-set of readings done by women are essentially minimal. The only
. se'riousHalachic objection anyone could raise would be a problem of Kol Isha
[the traditional prohibition against a woman singing] . Given the structure of
most of Qur.synagoguestoday, that is either a problem which the community
has decided is not a serious one, or is a problem which the community has
managed to Halachically overcome. The reality is that, in most Orthodox
·synagoglles today, women's voices can be' heard during the course of Tefilla,
including their voices being heard at various points of singing. So the com~
has practically-if it has not yet formulated it as. such-overcome the
of Kol Isha. Therefore I don't see any other significant Halachic prob,in the, institution of forrhal readings from Ketuvim. The introduction of
. new.practice would not, so t~ speak, threaten the existing domains.
. There are a variety' of other things that·. could happen, that could evenallow women to participate in the pacing of the service, which is
•'
<;'::',>.'
fundamentally the rolc of the Cantor today,f:r:omthe.
section in the synagogue] . That too.; however, is sOlm':e' thlng~wlhichjw(Jllld[';Jiroiri:?i;';
what I see 'of the community, come somewhat la:ter_O~to
I see
gradual process which I think will eventuallyJeadt6' a <si~(nifiC.a;rit1jif.'
a
~ffer~nt
invOI~eme.
o~e.~ li~.urgica1
~t.e
pattern of
n.t of w.'
..l. in
...
. . . . ,:".p.'.ra.:c. . ..:
It s gomg to happen overnIght, and 'I think }Vere It to be';3Ittemp1ted
change it would only set back that kind of advancemei1t~,!' .'...' .' .
I see the acceptability of women's Mfnyanimasa stage;il1.'that'
By the same token, there are things that ihrilve' happeried·:'~hich~"a'I:t .firstl~arlce;.T!<;i').·;).i
don't seem to be necessarily even related' this issue. but·. '.. ~te,in
significant. For example, in many communities wom~n themselves recite Kaddish upon the death of a relative for whom "":kaddiSh should be recited". I remem- 'I,
ber, not that long ago, when no woman would even' thinkofsayht;g~~ddiSI'l..~·!·
It would generally be suggested that she hire someon~ toSaY:itf()rp.e~~8Y~r<i.
the past five years or so women have begun increasingly t6 sayKaddis~,all~;,· ..
their recitation of the prayer is responded to by the commuruty~ ~o{o~iY:'whel;1::::'
there are men saying Kaddish, but even when the wt>manis the6:nly·one:sa~g.'
Kaddish, the community responds to her Hazmana [literally: inV:it~tion~·ryd~ ..
tation of a prayer calling for a congregation~ response}. This lias a t~en1ehdOu~:: .'
amount of significance, just in terms of the womanmourneran(lher.abilit
to ~ve expression to her m9urnin.g within the s,~andard ·context()fsuch;ex~;:.,:'
presSion during TefIlla. More significantly, the community is graduallY'becomin~:' .
accustomed to the idea that the woman is her own person inrel~tion:tothe:
liturgy. Saying Kaddish is not something she has to farm out; she haS the righf',l.
of equal direct address to God as ~oes any man. Her recita:tion ()fth~'Da~ai
ShebiKidushah [pertaining to prayers requiring a Minyan] conJ:rn:iIlds'asmuchF;:
response from men as does the invitation issued bya mari.Now thai~ssornethifl:g,
that's happened.very quietly. I don't know of any commurucation.am?ngr~ois.(:.:.",
which has encouraged this par~icular pattern, ~d yet ithashappened;::arid:"Ji i '
think in a very significant way. ' . , .
. . .' . ". . . ........•.. ' ':'
A further development I see which again is not at first bl!lsh~ignificap:t,'i"
but ultimately is very significant, is the spread of Eruvii:n, [boundariesc()I1~:
structed around a community whose presence makes .carryingontheSabb~th·'
Halachically permissible]. The very fact that communities are making pOS-1 '.
sible for women with small. children to come to. :Sh~l; that ies;'nbt'onlyfue
experience of Tef:tlla, but really the whole experience,pf Shabba('which:is!~:
being addressed, has made the community much more awarcof the in4epe~dent::'
religious needs of women than it· had been heretofore. Preciselybe~,auSet~ei!
Eruv is established, synagogues are. having to estabiish;babysitting.ariangel11en~sri,
at Shuls so that children brought to Shul under those .drcumsiancesca1J.b~;;'
cared for. '
.
That ac~ommodation is itself generatiI1g some a~cillary consequ~Il~esjFdf~i.
' .
.
. . . . <: . . . . . ..' "~i. " ,:.). • •
example, today more .than ever before; men and. women dividechild:are!oIlJ
Shabbat in communities where there are no Eiurimto assureth.athotha:re·a~lei:·· .
to go to Shu!. Increasing numbers of people will' spllttheir timesO,thatonemay'
to'
)'\!
it
p.
··t~V.I~VC:u. '''.(l',n nlorIlirlglMiJ1Y,1Il and the. other to a Minyan at a regular time ~
....
"Marriage and Divorce
Jnreiation to the second area, the disabilities with regard to marriage, and
divorce, there has stllibeen not ~uch more movement toward a solution. On
level of"consciousness of the problem, and of initial steps toward solution,
l)hirik there has been tremendous effort. At this point, for example, the Rab:~J;j~ical Council of America has had a commission working on the problem of
lAgunot [literally: chained women, or wives who cannot oi,?tain a divorce] of
'rehlctant husbands for almost ayear now. They stand together with the Bet Din
[rabbinical court] of the Rabbinical Council on what seems to be the verge of
onell-pproach to a solution to the problem.
Q: Areyou at liberty to disclose what that solution might be?
,A: Well, it will be some form of prenuptial agreement.
Q: This solution, if it's reached, would pertain to marriages being contracted from ,that time onward. What about Jews who are already married and
have already become potential Agunot?
A: Well, within some of the designs that are currently under deliberation,
asl-understand it, both within the Rabbinical Council of America and within
L
Agudas Yisrael [a major traditional Orthodox Jewish body], there are possibilitiesof making'such adjustments even for marriages already in progress, Now,
whether the design will operate purely within Halacha or will significantly involve'.the use of civil authorities is one of the issues still at stake. The way things
are moving at thi~ point, however, I ~would foresee a relatively rapid solution
to the problem, perhaps six months to a year.
the,
, !"
, as rapidly as people might think •they ought ;tQ.J>e?ple,h~y~,t6·" • r.ecciMiizeLthaVii.~
these concerns are not the only o~es on the agenda-of:the'.re:-Ugi:d',u's.:'ciomintlrii1ly; ;(."
fhey h~ve 'to balance their concern' with these iss'lleswfth thi~ircol~ce:rm;·fc,r.tl1:e.:
rneral viability and character 9f the"religiOUS~O,mmunitY"
I
The Marriage Ceremony and the
wome~
Ge~
relatiOnto.m~U:ria~~}~sid~f.r~~,
Q: One or" the issues that
raise in
the problem of Agunah, is the total passivity of the woman~inthe:)~wish Ill<l[-;:
riage ceremony. Is there anything that coulctchange inth¢ ceremony, so that a
... '
wornan might participate in the act of her own marriage?
A: Yes, there is a great deal that could changeAndeed,at'ce.r~a1npe~ip'd(·
of time there may well have been more active pa~ticipation.bywomeit-'i~,.Jh~,."
marriage ceremony. The Ketubah [marri~gecontract] itself,asweha~eitt?daYl':
records extensive discussion by the husband in the course'of niarriage:. It~as
wi tnesses affirm that they have' heard the groom say all sorts of thill~'Which
in our marriage ceremony today are not said~ The~' appearirz the.te~tof:~he' .. :
Ketubah bu t are never actually spoken. Similarly,. the Ketubah iridicates:the: '
wife's acceptance of her husband's offer of marriage. The Ketubah'.,doetJ1,?t'
indicate how that acceptance is m;mifested,though iIi our currentpracti€eit'
is manifested only through her physi,cal acceptance of the ring. Thereis,ce·~tainly:.•;:
no need for that to be the only way in which she rriahifestsaGceptance~.Noi~g/
preven ts statements on the part of the bride, equivalent to those made bYt11~'
husband in former times, through which she would more 'actively manifeSt her
acceptance of the offer of marriage. .
. ' . . . . ' ,>;','.'
Q: But it would still be her reaction to.his initiativ~, ratp:er~than<.heii
partaking equally in marrying him,
. . . . . . . " ...· , . i
A: Yes. The contractual form of the marriage in Jewish law requires b9th',.":
an offer and an acceptance. Conceptually, neith~r one of those:is more'.~or.,Jessj;',:.;
active' than the other, since full consciousness, awareness, and c'orisei1t·~re 4ec-{'
'essary on both sides. It's no different from ~ny other cOJltractin:ythich,tpej,
standard form calls for one party tQ be identified as party <;>f the ,first part'!!l~:
the other to be identified as party of the second part. rhereis no implicatiOB:
second'dassedness, so to speak, in the identificati"On of one,()f.t~os~·parties·~s,
party of the second part. If you were to describe· that as, PaSSivitY"'all'~right,I'U'"
accept the terminology of active and passive, but Ithin~ that's 'r.e,a.1lYItl9re<~:,
matter of emphasis than of substance. The fact that, in technicalJeg3l ierms~th.~;,:;"
m~ makes the offer and the wife accepts itis not ofanypartiCufarsubstcmt~ye;,
significance for the character of either the ceremony or the marriage~.,O::",; •.'•.
Q: But doesn't the Ba'al [husband; literally: master,. owner] havecett~i'
prerogatives 'within the marriage that a woman do~sn't have, partifulariy'i~',;'
"1
.• • • •
d · '
the . '
l
Women's Service Roles
The third area is the question of women's relegation to service roles.
, ".' ,There, Ithink, the rea,lities of American society are simply catching up with
:.:Je\\ijshfaniilX life. Increasing numbers of women, long married, are going into
", ,'ithework for~e. An increased percentage of women, curren tly in their college
years, expect that they will devote themselves in part to a career. The notion
thai a woman's prime, her time commitment, and lifelong sustained devotion
'Yillbe exclus~vely to her husband and children is being overcome by the realities
:bfAmerican life. ,And the religious community is changing in that respect very
tapi~y_. When the vast majority of observant women identify themse~ves with a
career, the ideology of the community will shift to validate such identification
'toarilUch greater extent than it now does.
What would you recommend to concerned women or men within the
community who,would like to see changes come about?
I would say, as I have, said before, that people ought.to battle as hard
can for the implementation of change in the various areas as rapidly as
is feasibl~, but with an awareness. that those changes may not come
or \
,',.;t< .
property and inheritance?
.
.
.
. .' '. " .'. . . ....\:
A: No, I don't think that's the case. Ifll1)ything, in. the'Je\Vishl~.w:ofi'
marriage, the wife has the upper hand in almostallmatters.lnde~d,t1;1eKet~Dal1:.
itself or, for that matter, the Torah itself"only spells oilt'theobligatioris;.o.p.a~
I
,;,'
marriage, not
obligations of a wife. In the Talmud, virtually all
obligatiOlls in~ marriage are conceived of as fundamentally mutual. Did you
ha've~)onletihing spedfic in mind?
. Well, I would have to bone up .on property law, but isn't the fact that
theinaIlcontra.cts the marriage with the woman the heart of the proble~ of
Agunah?He's the only one who can dissolve a marriage he had made.
.' . .A:·· No, that's not the heart of the problem of Agunah. Indeed, the
:?\gunah problem is. a mutual prc;>blem. Since the time of Takkanat [the ordi"~:ilice of] Rabbenu Gershom, which dates back a thousand years or more, a
. :woman cannot be compelled to accept a Get [bil,I of divorce] . The Agunah
': situation can cut both ways.
'.
Q: Bur there is. an out for a man who wants to divorce a wife who refuses
receive the Get, [Interviewer's Note: One hundred rabbis may override Rabbi
Gershom's prohibition against polygamy to enable a man whose wife refuses a
Getio marry a. second wife without divorcing the first. There is no analogous
. Ioopl:lOle for the Agunah.]
A: Notnecessarily. There may be an out, depending on the circumstances,
but not always.
-Q: In effect, however, are there many male "Agunim"? Is that a problem?
A: Oh, it most certainly is. At this point, for example, the Bet Din and
the Rabbinical Council of America see close to the same number of situations
in which men cannot deliver aGet as those in which women cannot obtain them.
One .Qf the worst aspects of this problem is that it's at least twice as great as
people realize. It affects both women and men. Unfortunately, the consequences
of not obtaining a Get are differen t for ~men and women.
Q: What's the difference?
A: Well, if a woman remarries without a Get, then the children born of
the second marriage have the legal status of Mamzerim [those born out of
Jewishly sanctified wedlock] . For the man who remarries without a Get, his
chilqren a~e. not Mam'{.erim. He stands in violation of a prohibition. against
}~king.a secoQd wife, but that doesn't affect the status of the children. These
::diffe.rences inconsequences are not a result of a fundamental inequality in the
relationship 'betweenhusband and wife within the context of the marriage.
Certainly in terms of economic and service issues, the Halacha has struggled
·:V~ryhard. and~ I think, succeeded in achieving substantial equality in the marriagerelatibnship.. .
. .
. Q: Is there' a· notion of a "rebellious husband" analogous to that of a
. "rebellious wife"? .
,
'. A:Thei~ is within the context of the circumstances under which a Bet
can compeLa husband to accept adivorce from his wife, or to issue a divorce
wife. Within an integral community governed by Jewish law, the problem
~i.is.band refusing to issue a Get to his wife is virtually nonexistent, or it
virtually nonexistent; because a variety of mechanisms exist in which
can' compel a husband to issue aGeL Indeed, it is the wife who has
A:"i Bet I)in cannot compel a wife to accept a Get; all it can do is
to
authorize the husband' to remarry, whereas' a' courfcan . . .•. ". . . . . . . ..•...•.... . . . .......................:. ): •.
issue a Get. But, unfortunately, oursis notan ....... ' . · i . ..'g~.Y:~.W~4"
by JewIsh law. Because of the absenc~, of ju dicial autonomy; th~"P~Q,~s~·B~. ~'?tpt:.',
pulsion does not function; Thisleads to aproqiem ofa;h'li~.b~d,?~~g.ab~~:v.rit~:,
impunity to refuse to issue a Get. .... ."
.' ' , ' . .•. .
. Q: . Just to clarify, you're saying that the fac~
itJs;a.mm~liai~~lia.;;
who contracts the marriage with the woman, who perfotms,)th~act:.~oiKiriY~··:·:/
.
'.
I · .. ,,· . . . ' . " . ' '.' .
[purchase, acquisition] which establishes the marri&ge .. '. ,:': . '!:.,. . . . . ; "
A: No, the man does not perfotm.tlie actofKiriyan.Inf:~he.·acquisiti()~.,
of property, one person performs an act in relation Jo·~object~.In Jnarriag~{!"
there's a contract between two contracting parties: one ofthoseparties'In~kes:, :
the offer, the other accepts the offer. But that does not iIlariy W~Y~~9a~~,' .
that
1":......1::,:(
any superiority.
' . .....
.
. > . i .'
Q: Do you see, as a possibility, Halachically accePtabie-fonns<qfa.woman ...
participating verbally in the marriage ceremony, l~t's say ,u~der.'the.HupaIi.'•
[marriage canopy]?
..'~. :,
A: Yes, certainly. But that doesn't mean, of courSe, tha! anything goes.
under the Hupah. There are still legal restiictions~
. . ' .'
Q: Could a woman say, "Harey atah mikudash" ["You~eheleby;
sanctified ," words traditionally spoken by the groom to the bride] ? .' .' ....
'
. A: She could. The specific' problem thai~s created by ,d6ublerfugs,\!,
though, is a conceptual one. The ringiscurrerttIy d~signed tobea1consideraiion":
for the contract. It is a manifestation, through it being offeredandaccepted~()f)
the commitment of both parties to the contract of marriage·.\Vhere: thereis".:
-exchange of rings it could simply lead to the conclusion that ther~. haS n<>tb¢en , .
an acceptance of the offer, but simply an exchange .. That is, 'y<:>,uoffered .hie'
one thing, I offered you something else, we accept the offering.".'Tha,twould::;
undermine the degree of clarity necessary in the.inceptioil of marriage.I:IQweyer;;,:
even without that kind of exchange, the breadth of fl~x.ibi1ity in terms ofwhat,:"
language the bride might use under the Hupah is quite extensIve.
.
. " .'
Exemption and Its Con~quences
Q: I want to tum for a minute~to one of the points }'ourrnidein~e
article, that nowhere in Jewish law is a speCific role mtq1qatedforwqmep.wi$·
absolute clarity. Rather, a certain role,the domestic one,:seemsto'be'pref~rred'~
for women. The exemption of women not so much from Positive~e-h()~n¥ •
religious obligations,. as from obligations which reg.uire :commurlc:zpreSef1(:e·~ i~s~: •
enacted in order to enable the woman to fulfill a domestic·role~Sincefor~?s~i'.
of her life. i modern woman is not overwhelmed. by domesti~r~sp?nslbilitY7}
certainly before she is married she is not, and afterlier'childrenJeave~eh?~~f
she is not-I was wondering why. the status of not being-oblfgated:Cq~dn'.~j::'· ~
itself be a time-bound or a voluntary one. It co~~heanOPtio~Whipha:~9Il1an.·:
who fmds herself with heavy domestic responsibilities could'optfoI"'anda;
woman without those responsibilities could" opt,against. Iftheworri~o'l)te"d;npt
i
I:
'1
not then have the status which
J~ws,whoare obligated-so that she may be counted.
Mezunun [quorum for saying a part of grace after meals] ?
have in mind specifically is that of the Onen. The Onen is
~o.meo~ewho has jJst .lost an immediate member of the family. Like women,
he .is relieved of the obligation of public prayer and other positive observances
·1ik.e Jvlotzi [blessiIIg: .over hread], Birkat Hamazon [grace after meals] , and
Sukkah[requirement to eat in the booth during Sukkot] , out of consideration
~.<>f his circumstances. After the burial, when the circumstances change, the
';"I:i~lachic status of the On en changes. Since there are distinct and serious disabilities which ensue, to women as a result of nonobligation, couldn't they be
permitted to choose to be obligated to co~munal Mitzvot when family obligatiOllS are not pressing1
A: Well, if .your question is, theoretically, could a system be designed
·which would allow for that kind of variability, my answer would have to be,
"PIob~bly yes." If on the other hand your question is whether the Halachic
. structure as we know it can.in the foreseeable future allow for that, my answer
wotild~have to be, "No." The reason I say that is because of a fundamental
'distjnction I attempted to make in the article, between legal systems which
define the obligations of persons on the basis of contract, as opposed to legal
systems which&fine !the obligations of persons by virtue of status. For whatever
reasons, the T()rah functions with the latter; it defines the functions of persons
in most areasby virtue of their status rather than by virtue of their contracting
to have or not to have certain obligations. Why the Torah does that is the sub. ject ora great deal of speculation. Yo~ might argue that it does so in order to
. achieve certainty of obligation and objectivity of obligation in order to eliminate
the massive gray areas that would invariably arise were religious obligations, per
. se, to be premised on a con tract arrangemen t.
. Certainly, one could easily foresee the massive difficulties that could arise
\yere the obligation of, let's say Yeshiva BaSukkah [the Mitzvah of sitting in
'<)lie'Sukkah], to: be contractually oriented rather than status oriented. What
."tllenof the. man who, as a widdwer, fmds himself responsible for the care of
. children? Would he then be relieved of the obligations? What then of the woman
~hose obligations are .not for her children, but who is responsible for the care of
~wpelderly parents? What "then of the obligation of a man whose job circum~t<l:nces are such that he is just overwhelmed by the amount of work he has
>16 do? hi other words, the problems I would see as inherent in contractual
:;.' arrangement relative to religious obligation are so massive as to undermine the
. possibility ofoper~ting a stable society. Now while the status alternative has
certmn disadvantages, I thin.k the advantage of stability, of certainty, weighs
v'erystronglY'in the ,balance that Jewish law makes,
.
the particular. status orientation of Jewish law; it seems to me that
th~>··rlp!:llm you described is not completely feasible. It is partly feasible, in. the
there are areas in which· women may voluntarily assl}me certain
'ob,lig,ltiom; and. their voluntary assumption of those obligations may be in'flu-
:".""
":.
": ..' . ' .•
ential in terms of communal e,xppctation and,:~-ar~suit;j··ptlU~ltc¢~' C()rrilrriJ.lnall.!::.·.•··.·\·.t;>
acceptance. of their involvement. Whether those ,conseq
doors to the correlative rights, I'm si,mplynot sure. .
. Domestic aildReligious Responsibniti~~
..
..
.
....
..... : : . : ' " .
('
, Q: On the question of the preferred role of women~ the d~~estic f91e ,
and their exemption from certain Mitzvot of a PiIblic~·comJnu~a1~at.1J,~ei:on¢.'
might agree when you say, as .you did int;he' artide: "The.tln~erIyilJ:g.·n1()tive:
. of exemption is not to unjustly deprive wQmen of theopportunity~o,ac¥eve
religious fulmlment." However, aren't the lack of meansorielimoti~e:~pr~ssidn:~';>,
the civil disabilities which women suffer, and the relegationoLwornen'toa:,:
service role, the direct consequences of wOI11an's exemption. inord~rt~at~e';'
might fulfill the preferred domestic role? Aren't the'three'problem a"!~a~;VfhiF~'\.
you yourself defined, the direct consequences of'theexemption}'oL',Vomen<
from these Mitzvot?·
,
. . . . . . . \ : >"
A: No, at least insofar as they are not the necessaryconse9.ue~ces;Ast() .:~ .
whether in fact they are the consequences, my own feeling is tliat:the.socihl .
history of Jewish society has had infmitely more impact upon these thiee::prop~,
lem areas than have virtually any p~rticular legal' provisions. We areilo~iiian;,
era in which the position of women is totally noyel. It is an erawlUcb.simply.,-':
has not been' known before to Jewish society. The positio~ of w9Ineii'iIf.ihe'.>
cultures within which Jewish society existed has. had a much greater~iInp~ct
on these problems than has any particular law, even those.laws\vhich'exenlpt'
women from specific Mitzvot. I say that because, as I see it, ther~ is non.f~essary
correlation between exemption from certain Mitzvotand theproblefuswhich
we've described. Exemptions from Mitzvot do not create problems ofAgunah; .
Exemptions from Mitzvot do not create the problems of tack or opp~rlu~t)'\i
for re.Jigious expression. Indeed, the opportuni;ties for religiouse:xpre,ssion',as.H"
Poskim [recognized rabbinic authorities] have aclai0Viledged, L thin~.;eXis~e~}:
. on a voluntary basis, and could have. become. more,fiimly' established:Wit~ir: .
the lives of Jewish women had the social reality been different. The'preference:.:
for the domestic role did feed into the sense that women'sfunctiortwas·'.to· (,
serve others. Their exemption from certain MitzV'ot merely helpedt9reiegatfl'i~
them. to that service role,
.
.
.
.,':
.'. .
.: '.. 'c"
Q: I would think specifically of the nonobligation'~fw'omen:tO)Ukkah:(
and Lulav. What is the celebration of Sukkot, if not the obligationsofSukkah~i'
Luiav, and Etrog? What I see in traditional society is that thewom~n~00k~.1gi:~;
serve the men who sit in the Sukkah, Bench [bless] tulavif theychoose,<ii1~t,~:
go to Shul if they're not too terribly tired from their exertionsjntheJ1om~~~ur:'
what is the religious content of this holiday, if woITIenare not obligated 'tp:
those Mitzvot which are central to the .celebration of this h()ljday?AIldA?eSri't:i"
that then create the same problem which yOl~ yourselfdetineat~d:,the)ackof;:
religious expression?
..'
. . . .•. ' •. ' .. . .. .•. . . . . . . i
!
, A: Let me ask you a question. on two levels. FIrst .of all,lthink you're.··
"
'". '"
', .. ' ,'> . -1"';",>
,-
I
askiIig: \Vhat .is Sukkot 'without Sukkah, Lulav, and Etrog? By
what is Rosh Hashartah without T'kiat Hashofar [sounding of,
?
in.
no question
my mind that it is precisely those perceptions
have created the reality which I think is at some variance from what
. described. First, I don't know of any women who do not take
m~~aSlm~s to assure that they are present for the sounding of the Shofar
."'TF'·"f·",<'n Hashanah. I do ,not know of women within the religious community
do not sit in the Sukkah and who do not exert themselves to take Etrog
Lulav. My perception is that you're right in the sense that there is a perceived lack in the fullness of the religious experience of these holidays without
the behavioral Mitzvot. As. a consequence, Jewish women have made an attempt
toexpedence these behaviors, even though they are not obligated to do so.
That does not mean that the experience of Sukkot ends up being the same
for a woman as it is foi a man. There is no doubt in my mind that a price is paid
foi the, exemption from certain positive Mitzvot. There are religious conse. quences" to the non participation in such events, but that's precisely where my
.contention of the preference for the domestic role enters the scene.
My contention essentially is that the price paid th rough exemption is
necessary for th~achievement of some other social goal. I don't think the Rabbis
debated lightly questions of whether women are obligated in certain Mitzvot
.or not. They .debated those questions with full awareness of the significance
of the. outcome of their debates. They were quite aware that reaching a conclusion that women are not obligated in the certain MitZVall was not simply some
theoretical di~cussion, but that it would affect the character of the religious
experience of women, and that they would not reach a conclusion of exemption
. unless they felt that that conclusion was necessary as a matter of legal process
and of social goals. In effect, the desired social goal, to encourage the election
of the domestic role, was one which had a price.
'
.... •. Let me give an analogy, the situation you mentioned before, the Oneil.
"!~e'Onenis notrandc>mly exe~pt from a Mitzvah; he is exempt because it is
",assumed that ne ought to be engaged at that point in the preparations for the
btirial of his relative. Now, what the law is saying in that situation is: yes, it is
<true' you should be obligated to do Mitzvot, but there is, at this point in time,
ap?verriding concern, That overriding concern may have deleterious conse.qu·encesto your religious identity for this period of time. However, the social
.. Gbncerri is simply more important and, in effect, calls on the individual to '
identify with that social concern and respond to it. I think, in a similar fashion,
':'"tne law identifies the preference for a domestic role as.a vital social concern; still
. one which is mandated , but one which must be preserved.
. Q; .But thehlige difference between the Onen and the woman, of course,
that' the Onen's status lasts for a few days and the woman's status lasts from
to death.
'A:., That's true.
~o for 4er entire lifetime, she has to struggle ifshe wants to have reli-
~. ~
"::- ..:
..
,,.;:
"
:
;~ ;
..
•
.'.',
"
•••••
gious expression. It's not something for whichshegets,~,u:"P'ipOlrt,tto)jLt:b,e':sYi~t~jrriJ;.'~"',I.i;.
A: You can't look at the Mitzvot from"v.,r.I. ·lchwOmeP.>~ll:ffeXC;lm:P1:'j~jsoj,~~:\: ?:.;.;;?; ..::,{,~:.;
tion. In other words, if it were thecase thatwome~:0 'or,de1;'t'j::achiievce·,tlf{ii·.·,·.·.· :
particular social goal, were exempttromal1 Mltzvot,.{hat.
"" .............. ". ,.
li·
But we're not talking about a situ~tion of exemption fromhll1Y.u.LLv'I.JL~';"'~"""- .... "
talking about an exemption from sQrne fourteen Mitzvot"out:.6{a to·tarcifht,~:;'i/.'.,<
I don't see that as a tDial d~nial o'f allreligiousexpression .. I~m nofbeli1ttlii1i!: ~'.'.,:
the areas of exemption, they are significant areas ofexeI11ptiori;bUt'
they have to be seen within th~ ,context·of a' totru.religio~slife~\Vherf
said:. and done, there is Shabbat, and there is Kash~t, andther~"~s¥~tz'a1t.'
There are 599 Mitzvot which remain mandatory.
which: stillshfpe:,the
religious character of the Jewish WDman. I don't think it'sappidpria.M:t~:~y~r~.;\::
state the case, as if those exemp~ions had, themselves,.deprived#er~of;iirzy, .
vehicle of religious expression. .'
.'
....' ' ; .
Q: It's not only the individual exemptions though, ifs wh~t .. nonob1i-' .
gation does to her status in Jewish law. It's. the consl~quences of rionQbiigati~.ni
as well as the individual exemptions..
. .... .' .' ..'
A: Bu t there too I don't see those consequences reallyassighifJ,cariias::
you do. The only area of significant conseqllence.isthe area ofliturglcatPJac-,
tice and I, aga,in, don't think that the area of liturgical practii::eshould'b~;so"
overwhelmingly emphasized as to belittle the vast areas of her re:Ugious·ex-: ..
pression that continue to exist. I'm not saying that the loss of corieia:tiverigh~s
is insignificant. It is significant, but it has to' be seen in cqntext.OppOrtlinities:
do exist for religious expression. One should not SimplYisoiateapartic~la~;"
eicment of practice which has taken ,.on much greater signific~ce tha:niieve~
had before, but is still only a part of the processes of religious life,'
.' ....
and
Egalitarian Judaism
Q: I'd like to follow up on your point that Jewish law do~snotm~date\'
a domestic role for women, but that it prefers and encounlges()ne6~caust:'pf::,J
the preeminent importance of the family for Jewishsurvival.ld'on;tthink;i:~ .'
anyone would contest the family's importance for 'Jewishsu~Y-.il,butthe~
assumption that it is primarily the woman's role to raise thechildrerr iswhaf:\
modern social scientists would call a "patriarchal'; ~ssumption.;A'~ma~riarCh~'\:'
society, for example, might also elevate children ~d fa:dtily~o·p~ecinhience,:!;
but. assign the domestic role to men. Jewish society is andalwayshasbeeIl.'"
patriarchal in nature, .b.ut surely the assumptions of patriarchalism'a~enpt;:i~i:'
and of themselves, relIgIOUS values. Or are they? The questi0Il:. is: Canyou~ake:;~?
patriarchalism out of Judaism and stillhave Judaism?
".'
.
'.'.'
A: I can certainly say that certain elements of patriarchal ass~lTIPtioris,,:
are not necessary elements of Jewish practice. Indeed,itwouldb.e<excepti~n:aIlY'·i'
worthwhile for the religious community to .proVide; evengreate,r'etTI~haSls":'
on !he need for fathers to playa much moresignificant.role.inr!liSi~g;thei~
children and in general household responsibilities thah'has been the,g~f1.erat·
•
4
.pI:actice. ~twould bean~?,ceedingly healthy development if Jewish men would"that 'it may be more important for them to spend more time witb. their
imdchildren instead,of e,arning an extra few thousand dollars a year
overtime.
How'about in preference to learning? O~ to Minyan?
A: They come within the mix as well, in preference to learning and in
'pi~feie~cetoMinyan. When all is said and done, Minyan is at best an obligation
',,<)fquestionable source; that is,. the obligation of praying in a Minyan and learn'ihg Torah in the sense ihat the amount of time one spends in learning Torah
has always to be bahlllced against the totality of one's obligations. That totality
of obligations has not sufficiently as yet taken into account the
p.eedsof the relationship between husband and wife, let alone the needs of the
relationship between a father and his children. On the overall pattern, whether
Jewish law could accommodate itself to matriarchal assumptions ...
Q: Fm not suggesting that would be a preferable alternative to patriarchal assumptions; I'm just pointing out that, while the importance of the
family to suIVival is what you ,could call a "neutral value," the assignment of
that. role to women is a patriarchal value.
'A: And what· I'm pointing out is that while the assignments within that
role could be more equally shared, and indeed ought to be more equally shared,
~thin the current structure of Jewish law, that would not, for a very long
period of time, affect the distribution' of religious obligations. Whether eventually it would, would depend not only on an isolated Jewish community, but
,also onthe patterns which developed within society as a whole.
. The Future: Female Poskim?
Q: Can 'you envisage women ever participating directly in the Halachic
process and as Talmidot Hachamot [major Talmudic scholars] , rabbis, Poskim?
........< A: There is nd doubt in my mind that in the relatively near future
~om~n will be active participants ill: the process of shaping Halacha. Increasing
numbers of women are developing their competencies with specializations in
. various areas of Halacha. As they begin to write publicly, they will begin to
influence the lialacha. 1 would foresee, certainly within the next decade, the
. existence ofwomen initially with specializations in Halacha of particular con~~em to women, are~s such as the Laws of Niddah [time of monthly separation]
where women will become, the, primary Poskim. It will take somewhat longer
for that to spread generally, but I certainly foresee a time when women will be
active partiCipants in the process of determining Halacha.
Q: Would their recognition as Poskim be effective-would it ever be
ac,:6nrlpamie:d by Smicha:, rabbinic ordination?
Smicha-in arid of itself has no legal consequence. There is no authorlaw which is vested in the individual byvirtueof Smicha.
But there's no such thing as a Posek without Smicha today.
A:
anyone.
Q: But they're men; they don't have +"~.... ,,.""~
A: No, I don't think that Smlcha will be .a sigJriUicarlt):ssUle:I think
significant issue will be twofold: (l) the significance of'ftomen'.s COllltI'ibu~ti9JJ/~····.:,./
to the literature of Halacha; ,and (2) the d~gree to
their Halachic decisions.
"
'
Q: And you don't feel that. a woman would'be '
having her Halachic opinions accorded recogniti~n arid ac(:epltaIlce?
A: Of course she could be at a disadvantage.
the struggle will be difficult.
Q: That's why I'm pushing about Smicha.
A: But Smicha would be irrelevant to it. Indeed,
of Smicha would make it, in the contemporary' situ,ation at ~"a"L_<:;VI~II···TnflT-'"
difficult for her, rather than easier.
'
Q: Why is that?
"
A: Simply because ·she would become, by virt~e of her Smicha~anobj~Ct,
of social opprobium within the Orthodox community today.Sim,ply a:g'a matt~t
of issuing Piskei Halachic [rabbinic decisions], I don't see it as aproblein:yPu
see, even as pl\rely as a technical Halachic matter, for a .Woman to'functiona~',/~,
a Dayan [rabbinic judge] would be Halachically .~prohlem~ti~. On ,the ()ther::';>"
hand, for her to function as a Posek of Halacha. would not benear1y'asproh~'i~;"
lematic, simply because the process of P'sak Hal.acha is fun~amentaUyapioce~s .
of Birur Halacha, of the exposition and clarification of existing Halacha. .
Q: Where would a woman get the extensive legal traihulg' nece,ssary lei •. . .
become expert in specific areas of Jewish law?
.
, i . · ' .. ,.,;\
A: I would assume their training would be largely through private·tu.td:(~··
ing, to some extent through formal training in Talmud and Halachicliteratut¢
in graduate schools. Not in Yeshivot.
'
Q: Thank you, Rabbi Berman.
..
' " , ..