=============

‘So long as the rabbinic court keeps a black list of mamzerim and it’s the only institution officially allowed to marry Jews in the State of Israel – we all partners in the crime of hurting persons who have committed no crime.’ Rivkah Lubitch calls to get rid of the rabbinic court’s black list

Published:  04.13.10, 15:19 / Israel Jewish Scene

In a book by Daphne du Maurier there’s a description of a horrible ceremony that took place nearly six hundred years ago in England. It involved a woman who “violated” the dignity of her husband when she had sexual relations with another man after she had already been widowed (Yes yes. You read right. She had sex with a man after the death of her husband!).

From the story it becomes clear that the woman was compelled to undergo the ceremony lest she lose all rights to her husband’s property. In other words: Either she took part in the ceremony and was allowed to continue living in her home, or she was thrown into the street. At the humiliating ceremony, the woman confessed her sins in detail to the priest and blood thirsty crowd. This is the way it worked: The woman was stripped to her waist and her hair was cut. She was then poised on a black sheep that she rode for a not insignificant distance to the laughter of the mob that gathered to witness and be forewarned. The woman rode on the sheep for about a hundred yards from the place of the ceremony. Then she was forced to dismount the sheep and crawl on her knees till she reached the priest. She then confessed her sins to the priest, who, in an act of grace, offered her absolution.

Seem familiar? We have something similar – the wayward woman (sotah), suspected by her husband of having sex with another man, is brought before the High Priest in the Temple Gate. Her hair is unraveled and her clothes let loose as she faces the curious crowd who comes each day to watch the spectacle. But it’s an old story and doesn’t happen today. We’re not like that.

But even today there are ways to maintain the honor of men. We know well how to punish a woman who violates the honor of her husband by having sex — we ostracize her child forever.

We punish her children in such a way that the woman will remember and never forget who sets the rules of the game, and what those rules are. Already in the womb, we turn the fetus conceived of the forbidden union into a type of monster. A creature who would have been better off never coming into this world. We label the child a “mamzer” and ostracize him or her forever. No mercy. No forgiveness. No repentance. No cure. S/He gets the ultimate punishment – social ostracism forever.

The personal is political. What a woman does in private is the business of the entire Jewish world, the laws of the State of Israel and its citizens for generations. So long as the rabbinic court keeps a black list of mamzerim and it’s the only institution officially allowed to marry Jews in the State of Israel – we all partners in the crime of hurting persons who have committed no crime. Don’t say that you didn’t know. Stop sticking your head in the ground. The State of Israel and the halacha have collaborated to harm innocent people. We need to work together to solve the problem and get rid of the black list for good.

Rivkah Lubitch works at the Center for Women’s Justice , Tel: 02-5664390

=======================

Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis. . . adroitly moderates a virtual conversation between traditions and thinkers. This book is a wondrous springboard into a rewarding dialogue between  biblical scholarship and the philosophical perspective.

Micah D. Halpern, author of THUGS, The Micah Report, and Jewish Legal Writings by Women

“A fascinating, learned, and wide-ranging commentary that creatively blends the  insights of ancients, medievals, moderns, and post-moderns. . .Readers will enjoy this book.”

Prof. Warren Zev Harvey, [Chair, Department of Jewish Thought], The Hebrew University of Jerusalem ,

===========

I believe that all who carefully read this book are in for a deeply rewarding experience. A study of the text and commentary of Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: The Timeless Theological Commentary will contribute greatly to an understanding of the rich and diverse fabric of biblical narrative and provide an appreciation for its creative application to the problems of the modern world . . . Birth and Rebirth through Genesis is a book for Jews and Christians.

Prof. Marvin R. Wilson, Author of Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith

===========

The book is a profound exploration of the important metaphors, symbols and archetypal structures of Genesis. . . Most remarkable about this stunning array of insights is that it leaves space for personal discovery, and time to hear the beat of heart-thoughts behind the words.

Paul Pines, author of My Brother’s Madness.

===========

Rabbi Michael Samuel’s Birth and Rebirth through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation frees the reader from the confines of the theological spin of particular interpretations . . . . this work is spiritually fresh and relevant for a new generation of readers regardless of their religious background and faith.

Rabbi Dr Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, co-author of Jewish with Feeling

==========

While this is a book written by a rabbi well-versed in the rabbinic tradition, one cannot read more than a few pages to discover that his research, his interests, and his appreciation of critical thought span the centuries of both Jewish thought and Christian, while encompassing the best of the non-faith-bound philosophers of these same millennia . . . Rabbi Samuel is fearless in drawing on their works and their thinking in order to provoke his reader to leap beyond the well-worn paths of the past.

Allan C. Emery III, PhD, Senior Editor of Hendrickson Publishers.

Have you ever wondered about the beginning of Genesis in the context of the three thousand years of pondering prompted by these seminal three chapters? . . .  This magnificent interdisciplinary work will prompt, will compel, its reader to consider fundamental issues of the dynamic among text, self, and others within the context of cultures and time. . . . and deals superbly with  nothing less than everyone’s journey of “Birth and Rebirth.”

Paul Borgman, Author of Genesis: The Story We Haven’t Heard

One of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s most brilliant philosophical concepts is what he terms as the  Sprachspiel, better known  in English as the “language-game.” Linguistic expression is analogous to the rules of a game,Wittgenstein explains:

“Let us imagine a language. . . .The language is meant to serve for communication between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building with building-stones; there are blocks, pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass the stones, and that in the order in which A needs them. For this purpose they use a language consisting of the words ‘block’, ‘pillar’, ‘slab’, ‘beam’. A calls them out; –B brings the stone which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. — Conceive of this as a complete primitive language.”[1]

For me, my favorite game is chess. If I point out to my opponent, “Please move your king, it is in check,” the word “king,” or “check” has a specific meaning and relevance to someone who already knows the game. Neither word would make any contextual sense to someone who is unfamiliar with the game’s rules. By the same token, a child will not understand what the word “kitty” means until he or she first experiences seeing or touching a cat. According to Wittgenstein,  One cannot define what a word is, but only how it functions.

Down the “Rabbi” Hole

Rabbinic language–both ancient and modern–also follows a similar kind of formula; how the rabbi interprets or defines a situation, creates a behavioral trajectory leading to certain results.

One of the most significant examples of how this process occurs is with the estranged wife who cannot remarry because her husband refuses to grant her a religious divorce. To say that a woman is an “agunah,” means she is in a social sense barred from resuming a normal life until her marital  status is resolved. From the 2nd century onward, the Sages went out of their way to liberate a “chained” woman like this through just about any kind of legal means possible. This has generally been the policy of most medieval rabbis up to the modern era.

In my early twenties, after receiving ordination at age 22, I decided I wanted to become a  rabbinic judge; one of the areas  I was thoroughly tested in was  Chapter 17 of Eben HaEzer that dealt with this topic. Many of the responsa on this topic read like an interesting mystery novel. A reader could not help but discover that the earlier generations of rabbis were problem solvers–not problem makers like we have today.

Since the death of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the Haredi community has become more radicalized because of their hatred and fear of  modernity in general and especially egalitarianism. The agunah’s plight is reminiscent of the famous conversation Alice has with the clever Cheshire Cat:

‘In that direction, the Cat said, waving its right paw around, ‘lives a Hatter: and in that direction’, waving the other paw, ‘lives a March Hare. Visit either you like “ they’re both mad.
`But I don’t want to go among mad people,’ Alice remarked.
`Oh, you can’t help that,’ said the Cat: `we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.’
`How do you know I’m mad?’ said Alice.
`You must be,’ said the Cat, `or you wouldn’t have come here.’

Like Alice, the agunah is stuck in an artificial constructed rabbinic reality where the rules of logic and ethics no longer make any coherent sense. This is especially the case in Israel where the Orthodox women in particular find themselves caught in a maze of rabbinic corruption and red tape. Once a woman enters the rabbit hole of the Haredi rabbinate (Sorry, I could not resist the pun!), she is faced with menacing threats from all sides.  Alice in Wonderland is an apt metaphor for the kind of disorientation the agunah experiences in her attempt to extricate herself from her ex-husband and especially the rabbis!

Statistical Sleight of Hand

If an estranged woman could “officially” be denied her status as an agunah, would that mean that the problem does not really exist? It sounds like the Cheshire Cat has been traveling to Me’ah She’arim lately. To the victim, it is like a world gone insane.

In one of Rivkah Lubitch’s newest columns on Ynet News, she discusses this kind of precise case. While examining the data that was recently published by the Rabbinic Court Administration, one would unmistakeably get the impression that in the year 2007, there were only 180 women classified as “agunot,” women who cannot remarry for the reasons mentioned above. However, this number does not jive with the figures produced by the Rabbinic Court Special Task Force, which lists the number as around 292 cases!

Like a good detective, Ms. Lubitch discovers that many cases involving the rabbinic courts involve divorce proceedings often have to begin from square one again since  a member (s) of the original court of rabbis who first heard a case, were subsequently replaced by rabbis who hadn’t heard the case–thus creating a bottleneck in the divorce proceedings. She explains how one case eventually got settled:

“From the court’s perspective: All’s well that ends well. In 2009 the rabbinic court detectives caught the husband, brought him to court, and he agreed to divorce. A success story, no? Not in my mind. A divorce given 10 years after the woman first filed for divorce, seven years after the parties signed a divorce agreement, and five years after written summaries were filed with the rabbinic court can not be considered a success. With all this, the court managed to make itself hated in the eyes of the woman, her children, and all her acquaintances. The court refused to take any action, showing no empathy for the pain of a woman who lived unhappily, miserably and possibly in sin. Moreover, I doubt if L was ever counted as an agunah in the ’scientific’ survey conducted in 2007. How could she counted? After all, in 2007, her case was closed!”[2]

Denial Is Not a River in Egypt

As I mentioned earlier, the rabbis are master contortionists, and their halachic edicts in Israel create a dangerous game that keeps the woman in a state of limbo until the rabbis decide to finally take the measures to effectively end the divorce–but never without scarring the lives of the poor agunot. The Israeli Supreme Court needs to strip the Haredi rabbis of their power over all issues pertaining to personal status. The monopoly of Haredi power must be broken.  As bad as the recalcitrant husband happens to be, the rabbinic system is incomparably worst because it routinely marginalizes and humiliates its society’s female members in the name of Halacha. Is it any small wonder why the Haredi rabbis are so deeply despised in Israel?

These rabbis will someday have to face the Supreme Judge in the world of Truth–before Whom, there is no escape.

=========

Notes:

[1] Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, c. 2.

[2] Rivkah Lubitch,The Jewish World, “Who’s counting agunot?” (3/16/2010) — http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3861525,00.html

Continuing with our last thought, how could Deborah in the Bible (Judg. 4:4) serve as a judge, according to the Talmudic and medieval rabbis?  The 13th century of scholars known as the Tosfot, try to make sense of the problem posed. To their credit, Tosfot offers at least adds fluidity to much of its interpretation; they are a lot like the girl with the curl, when they are good . .  . you know the rest of the story. The same may be said of the Tosfot interpretations.

Ba’ale Tosfot discuss the problem from a variety of perspectives:

A. One answer proposed suggests that that Deborah was a judge because her community accepted her. Tosfot also admits that a woman is considered to be an equal in every matter of jurisprudence, except when it comes to serving as a witness. [1]

B. The Jerusalem Talmud rules that a woman is not allowed to act as a judge [2]; the case of Deborah is the exception–and certainly not the norm. Deborah was chosen by virtue of the Shekhinah resting upon her.[3]

C. Alternatively, one may accept a woman to serve as a judge, just like two litigants may accept a relative to serve as a judge–provided each party agrees. [4]

D. Some scholars say that Deborah could only “teach,” but she could not render legal decisions–only men could do that.[5]

================

In the interest of brevity and clarity: Explanation A strongly supports the idea that a woman may be accepted as a spiritual leader by the community.  By the same token there is certainly no violation of “modesty laws,” just like the modesty issue never played a role in the narrative of Deborah. She unabashedly taught Torah and functioned like a judge in every respect.

With respect to the third answer, we discover a view that is similar in  substance to the first opinion, but it is somewhat similar to the second view as well. While a woman may not technically be “kosher” as a judge, if she is competent and the people wish to accept her–despite the limitations of gender, a community has every right to accept her–provided she has a strong mandate from the community empowering her to lead.

This is the liberal approach of Rabbi Avi Weiss, which I wholeheartedly support.

Understanding the Conservative View of the Haredim and RCA

It is not hard to see where Rabbis Shafran and Pruzhansky derive their point of view–it is primarily from the Jerusalem Talmud, as well as those scholars who have subsequently followed in its footsteps. They would argue that Deborah is the only woman to function as a judge in the Bible. Centuries of Jewish tradition, since early rabbinic times, certainly (but unfortunately) supports that kind of narrow interpretation. Besides, who says the Jerusalem Talmud is necessarily correct? The last time I checked, nobody in the Talmud ever said that the Sages were infallible.

What About Option D?

Option D does not have even the flimsiest bit of support from the Tanakh; one would have to redefine the verb שֹׁפְטָה  (šöpta) in a way that radically different from any other usage found in the Tanakh. Ordinarily, a  šofate (judge) decides cases that come before his attention (Exod. 21:31; Deut. 25:1; Josh. 20:6). Thus young King Solomon, e.g., asked God for understanding that he might “hear mishpat”- and a case is shortly brought before him to decide (1Kgs 3:11). The language of the text indicates that Deborah acted no differently than any other male judge before or after her. For this reason, we must reject Tosfot’s reasoning. If anything, Tosfot’s argument here proves the exact opposite.

One More Point . . .

The Mishnah clearly states in  “Whoever is eligible to act as a judge is also eligible to act as a witness; however, one may be eligible to act as a witness, but not be eligible to serve as a judge.”  A woman really does not fall into the Mishnaic category, which only speaks about someone who can be both a witness and a judge. A woman may serve as a judge, but she cannot serve as a witness. Her exclusion from being a witness does not necessarily exclude her from serving as a judge at all–the Mishnah did not specifically address this kind of case scenario. One suspects the reason why the Mishnah never excluded a woman as a judge is precisely because Deborah functioned as a judge.

For the Mishnaic framers, this was really a no-brainer.

A Possible Compromise for Rabbi Avi Weiss

As a compromise, I think Rabbi Avi Weiss ought to consider ordaining Rabba Hurwitz to serve an exclusively female congregation for the time being. This way, there will be no issue of “modesty,” since it is an exclusive female congregation. Secondly, since the women will have accepted her as a rabbinit (female rabbi), there will be no violation of Jewish law as specified by the sources of A and C, but not B (but possibly D, in a limited sense).

The absence of unanimity should not be a cause for alarm to the Modern Orthodox community, since Halacha has seldom ever been unanimous in its thinking and redefinition. Indeed, there are numerous other rabbinic passages we can look at, but I believe we have demonstrated that Halacha is by no means a monolithic process; social issues do impact a religious and halachic community, as we have mentioned above in the case of woman’s suffrage. I suspect that had Rabbis Shafran and Pruzanski lived during the first part of the 20th century, these men would have opposed women’s suffrage for the same reasons they oppose female rabbis.

I dare any Haredi or RCA rabbi to explain: Why can women vote, serve as supervisors in Kashrut, answer Halachic questions with respect to the Jewish family purity laws, serve as attorneys in the most Haredi rabbinical courts in Israel, but not serve as women rabbis?

Inquiring minds really want to know.

Latest word (March 12, 2010)

The leadership of the Rabbinical Council of America and Rabbi Avi Weiss have apparently reached agreement that Rabbi Weiss would no longer confer the title of “Rabba” upon graduates of his women’s seminary, but rather the title “Maharat.” This superficial move does not in any way change the position of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah that placing women in traditional rabbinic positions departs from the Jewish mesorah, and that any congregation with a woman in such a position cannot call itself Orthodox.

===============

Notes:

[1] BT Nidah 50a, Tosfot, s.v., כל הכשר לדון כשר להעיד, cf. BT Bava Kama 15a.

[2] ירושלמי סנהדרין פ”ג ה”ט; טוש”ע חו”מ ז ד

[3] תוס’ ב”ק טו א, ועי’ ירושלמי יומא פ”ו ה”א ותוס’ נדה נ א ומהרש”א ומהר”ם שם בפי’ הירושלמי, ועי’ תומים סי’ ז ס”ק ה.

[4].חי’ הר”ן שבועות ל א, וע”ע בית דין שכל הפסולים כשרים לדון כשבעלי הדינים קבלו עליהם

[5] כל הכשר לדון כשר להעיד– תוספות מסכת נדה דף נ עמוד א

Frankly, I am not surprised at all by the series of events that ensued. Surprisingly, Agudath Israel spokesman Rabbi Avi Shafran admitted that the issue whether women may become rabbis or not is not a matter of “Torah law,” or not; in his opinion, it is morally wrong. Shafran remarked, “[If] Weiss had the backing of a world-class posek (halachic decisor) he would have a claim that he’s not departing [from the mesorah], but he does not have any such backings on the recognized Orthodox spectrum, chareidi or central. He’s changing the face of mesorah without anyone of stature behind him.”

I am curious: Where does the Torah speak about rabbis in the first place, since “rabbis” did not exist in biblical times?

But wait, it gets more interesting than just that.

Rabbi Shafran further argues that the ordination of a woman ran counter to the concept of tzniut, (modesty). It includes the idea that women are demeaned, not honoured, when they are placed in the public eye,” said Rabbi Shafran, “and that a position like the one suggested here is violative of that concept.”

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Teaneck, NJ, expresses a similar position in his blog: “There are two greater objections: the utter disregard of norms of tzniut, with which ModOs generally struggle, and the corruption of the methodology of psak that transmits the Mesora and Jewish cultural norms and societal values. The only way to consider in this context the compelling Jewish value of “the glory of the King’s daughter is within” (kal kevuda bat melech penima- Tehillim 45:14) is essentially to discount it and say it has no relevance in the modern Western world. Thus, this ideal of Jewish femininity – the disinclination to seek a public spiritual role, cited by Chazal hundreds of times – is simply written out of the Torah system. And why ? …”

Both of these men’s argumentation are interesting. For now, let us raise the obvious question: Is the idea of a female “poseket” (Halachic decisor) truly without precedent in rabbinic law?

One of the famous questions asked in the Halachic literature concerns the famous biblical heroine, Deborah, whom the verse explicitly states: “ At this time the prophetess Deborah, wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel” (Judg. 4:4). The verse clearly says that a woman can serve as a judge, despite the fact this position was normally reserved for men. Faced with the awkwardness of the biblical text, a number of different responses have been offered–which for the most part, prove to be mutually contradictory.

(To be continued)

A Catholic scholar, devoted to the Church and its doctrines throughout his life, died and went to Heaven, where he was greeted by St. Peter. For his heavenly reward, the scholar asked to see the heavenly archives where he could examine the original manuscripts of the New Testament. Hours later, St. Peter discovers that the scholar is distraught by what his eyes had discovered. One of the main tenets of the manuscript that was believed to state that all members, “…should stay celibate in all matters of sex…” has been found to be in error. The new translation has found the phrase to more accurately read that members, “…should stay, and celebrate in all matters of sex…” In other words, “Celebrate,” not “Celibate!”

The Church and sex . . . it sort of reminds me of the biblical prohibition against mixing meat and milk together–well, guess what? They don’t mix!

Well recently at my Introduction to Judaism class, one of my conversion students asked me the following two questions: “After reading the Da Vinci Codes, I began to wonder: Was Jesus actually married? Was a rabbi of that era supposed to be married? Secondly, what did you think of the movie’s overall premise?”

Let me say from the outset, that in ancient times, there was no official office of the rabbinate in the first century; generally speaking the epithet “rabbi” was an honorific title. Oftentimes, a wise person was called a “Chacham” (a Sage), or “Abba” since a spiritual teacher was considered to be like one who had given birth to a child or a disciple. Let us now examine the issues this person raised.

Now with respect to the old question, “Was Jesus ever mary-ied?” (great pun on “Mary”) The Talmud records an interesting question about Rav Huna (216-296) of Babylon. He is recorded as saying to one of his student, “‘See to it that you do not appear before me again before you are married,’ said he.” The Talmudic redactor observes, that R. Huna felt that “A man who has reached twenty years of age and still has not married, he will spend all his days in sin. ‘In sin’ — can you really think so? — But say, spends all his days in sinful thoughts.”

Another teacher, Rava (Abba ben Joseph bar Ḥama, ca. 280-350) adds, “The Academy of R. Ishmael also taught until the age of twenty, the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and waits. When will he take a wife? As soon as one attains twenty and has not married, he exclaims, ‘Blasted be his bones!’”  In the discussion that immediately follows, the Talmud cites a view from R. Hisda, who got married at a much younger age than 20. He recalls, “The reason that I am superior to my colleagues is that I married at sixteen. And had I married at fourteen, I would have said to Satan, ‘An arrow in your eye.’” [1]

It would be fairly safe to say that many Jews in the first century generally got married at a fairly young age so that they could fulfill the precept of raising a family. One rabbinic aphorism attributed to Ben Azzai (ca. 2nd century) reads: “Whosoever abstains from the precept of procreation is considered as if he shed blood” (T.B. Yebamoth 63b). Despite Ben Azzai’s endorsement of marriage, Ben Azzai remained a bachelor for all of his life, although some rabbinic traditions claim that he was married for a short period of time and got divorced. When accused of not practicing what he preached, he answered: “What shall I do if my soul yearns for Torah? The world can be performed by others” (Ibid.).

After Ben Azzai died, people used to say, “With the passing of Ben Azzai, diligent scholars passed from the earth” (Sot. 9:15). His intellectual pursuits were intensely passionate; he never wanted to be distracted from his Torah studies.

Perhaps Jesus had a similar attitude; and for that reason, he never married. On the other hand, perhaps he did get married; in all likelihood we cannot  know for sure. New Testament scholars readily admit that we know practically nothing about Jesus’ formative years.  This question is of little importance to Jews per se, but is obviously important to Catholics who have long rejected the idea of marriage as a biblical ideal for all of its spiritual leaders, which would explain why celibacy is so important in the Catholic faith.

Now, with respect to the Da Vinci Codes, Brown seems to take the goddess imagery a bit too far.  The protagonist Professor Langdon, observes, “The Grail,” Langdon said, “is symbolic of the lost goddess. When Christianity came along, the old pagan religions did not die easily. Legends of chivalric quests for the Holy Grail were in fact stories of forbidden quests to find the lost sacred feminine. Knights who claimed to be “searching for the chalice” were speaking in code as a way to protect themselves from a Church that had subjugated women, banished the Goddess, burned non-believers, and forbidden the pagan reverence for the sacred feminine.” [2]

The book suggests an interesting archetypal spin: a woman’s body is symbolically a container and makes a container symbolically a woman’s body. And that container has a name every Christian will recognize, for Brown claims that the Holy Grail was actually Mary Magdalene. She was the vessel that held the blood of Jesus Christ in her womb while bearing his children.

The novel exploits the Church’s long history of misogyny because it is an easy target to attack. However, the idea that the church wants to hide the importance of Mary Magdalene as one of the early disciples, involves a teleological leap of faith (as Kierkegaard might say). It is absurd to say that the Gnostic gospels are more pro-women than the Bible or traditional theology–especially when the exact opposite happens to be more accurate.

In the Gospel of Thomas, Mary is described as being given the ultimate reward for her devotion as one of Jesus’ disciples and apostles: Jesus performs a sex change on her (without surgery!) “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life.’ Jesus said, ‘I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven’” (114).

Gadzooks, what do we have here?! Shades of Gnostic sexism?!

Needless to say, no such teaching can be found in the Gospel narratives, but the Gospel of Thomas (ca. 117 C.E.)  reeks with the kind of sexism that existed in the Gnostic age of Late Antiquity.

Tom Hanks is a great actor; he made the movie quite entertaining, but I would not take the film too seriously. The Da Vinci Codes is fine work of fiction–that is all it is.

I have often thought that Midrash–regardless of its form, whether it be literary, cinematic, artistic, or whatever–says more about our desire to interpret the world in categories we find most familiar. Midrash says more about the interpreter than it does about a given biblical text. There can be no doubt that the Da Vinci Codes says more about its author Dan Brown, than it does about the origins of the NT.

===========

Notes:

[1] BT Kiddushin 30a-b.

[2] The Da Vinci Code, 238-239.

“Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler the universe who has not created me a woman.”

The Original Rabbinical Source of the Blessing

The origin of this prayer is found in the Tosefta to Berakhot 6:16 that reads:

R. Judah says: “A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: (1) ‘[Blessed are You . . .] Who has not made me a heathen’, ‘. . . . (2) Who has not made me a woman’; and  (3) ‘ . . . who has not made me an uncouth person.’”

The Tosefta then explains its rational:  (1)    “. . . a heathen,” because it is written: ^{ ‘}Before him all the nations are as nought, as nothing and void he accounts them,’” (Isa. 40:17). (2)   “. . . an uncouth person,” because it is said, “an uncouth person cannot be pious” (Avot 2:5). (3)   “. . . a woman,” for women are not legally required to observe all the precepts.

To what is this matter (i.e., gentile, uncouth people, women who perform the precepts) analogous to? A mortal king once said to his servant, ‘Go cook a meal for me.’ However, unbeknownst to the king, the servant had never cooked a meal in his life! After cooking a meal, the king got upset with him. Another analogy: A king once asked his servant to hem a garment for him, but having never hemmed a garment before, the servant ruined the garment, thus angering the king. [The moral of the story: Let those who are unfamiliar with the observance of the commandments be exempt from observing them, lest they be an affront to their Maker.]

It is interesting to note that unlike the canned apologetic responses seen in subsequent rabbinic literature, which purports that women are essentially exempt from the performance of certain time-bound precepts because of her family obligations, the Tosefta dismisses such a perspective. Her legal exemption from the commandments is because of incompetence and not because of the lack of opportunity.

Re-interpreting the Tosefta

The Talmud discusses part of the Tosefta in BT Menachot 43b:

A learned discussion began: “ R. Judah [1] used to say, ‘A man is bound to say the following three blessings daily: ‘[Blessed are You . . .] who has not made me a heathen’, ‘. . . . who hast not made me a woman’; and ‘ . . . who hast not made me a brutish man.’

One of the Sages, R. Aha b. Jacob, once overhead his son saying ‘[Blessed are You. . .] who has not made me a brutish man’, when he immediately said to him, ‘Isn’t this blessing a tad bit presumptuous?’ (Who says the rabbis didn’t have a wry sense of humor?) His son retorted, ‘OK, what would you have me say instead?’ Surely it is better to say, ‘. . . Who has not made me a slave.’ Once again his son retorted, “ How is this blessing different from that of a woman (seeing that neither one is fully obligated to carry out the precepts of the Torah; in fact they are on equal footing in terms of their obligations)?  His father rejoined, “A slave is more contemptible” (since his character is generally prone to licentious behavior, which is not the case with women).

Now the 2nd century Roman emancipated slave Epictetus would have certainly took serious offense to the Talmudic discussion, had he been included as one of the respondents–but that too, is another discussion for a future date.

As a child, I used to love reading the golem stories attributed to Rabbi Judah Loew, a.k.a., the famous “Maharal of Prague” (1525-1609).  Since my father came from Czechoslovakia, I grew up hearing many family tales about the golem. These stories were especially delightful since my father was a naturally talented storyteller.  The golem was something like a medieval super-hero who protected the Jewish community from pogroms in its time.  It is interesting to note, that despite the numerous tracts Maharal wrote on various philosophical, talmudic, and mystical themes, never once does he ever refer to the golem that is associated with his name.

What is a Golem?

The term gōlem is a “shapeless mass” (Ps. 139:16), but according to Jewish folklore, a golem is a creature that is made from clay, and is animated by magical and mystical means. One of the more apocryphal stories of the Talmud relates how a 4th century scholar named Rava, magically created a man through the Sefer Yetzirah and sent him to Rabbi Zera. The latter tried speaking to him, but the poor golem could not speak. When there was no response, he declared: ‘You must be a  product of our colleague. Return to your dust!’ and so he died (BT Sanhedrin 65b).

Ironically, it is with no precedent in the Bible, except for the creation of Adam–except, now, it is man who is attempting to act as a mini-creator. How could such hubris not fail?

Indeed, in nearly all the golem legends, it appears that anytime mortals attempt to create human life, it is an activity that is fraught with danger. It seems that our ancestors felt suspicious about the full extent of man’s creative powers. In many of the stories, the golem goes out of control, destroying everything in sight.

Adaptations of the Golem in Western Literature and Cinema

The Frankenstein story is a European re-adaptation of the golem legends. In J. R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, Hobbit Gollum devolves into a treacherous shape-shifter under the malign influence of the Ring, it seems obvious that the author had these legends in mind.

In Star Trek: The Next Generation, the character Data personifies  the golem legend. When attempting to integrate the emotional chip, he becomes capable of erratic behavior–even violence. Countless sci-fi films have developed this theme in numerous tales about humanoid-like robots turning against their masters, i.e., like the Terminator series. Even the X-Files had an interesting episode of a betrothed woman who turns her murdered husband into a golem, in order to avenge his death.

According to some medieval tales, the golem is indestructible; if the golem had been created by writing the Hebrew word “אמת” (emet; “truth”) on its forehead, it could be destroyed by erasing the first letter to produce the word “מת” (met; “dead”). If one had created a golem by placing the name of God in its mouth, all that was needed was to remove the parchment.

Can a Golem Join a Minyan?

The golem has found a respectable place even in the Halachic literature. In one case study, Rabbi Zvi Ashkanazi (1660-1718) writes in a responsa how his grandfather, Rabbi Elijah of Chelm, once made a golem in his garage. In this remarkable responsa, he asks whether (1) can a golem count as one of the ten who make a minyan or quorum for prayer?  (2) If someone killed such an entity, would be considered a murderer? Each of these questions revolves around one basic question: could such a creature possess a human soul?

If the golem can be counted, does that mean that a golem may be considered as a Jew?  Or does he have a gentile status? On the other hand, it is logical to say that the golem should be no worst than an adopted child, who is considered “Jewish.”

The rabbi wondered:

“’Should it occur to you that a golem could have been counted for a minyan (or for that matter any occasion requiring a minyan),  why would R. Zeira deliberately destroy it? It could only mean that the Golem is not considered  a person, for otherwise Rava would have most certainly used him for a minyan!

According to this piece of “dazzling” wisdom (of course I am not being real serious) , it would appear that a Golem is not really a ‘person’ in any real sense of the word, for the Torah clearly states, ‘If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; For in the image of God has man been made” (Gen. 9:6). In fact, were one to kill such a creature, it would not even be considered murder! [1]

In the case of Rava’s golem, since he was artificially made, therefore,  he could not actually be considered “human.” Rabbi Ashkenazi concludes, “Nevertheless, Rabbi Zeira should not have done away with it, unless it served no constructive purpose. If that is the case, its destruction can be of no consequence; therefore, it could not qualify for a minyan or, for that matter, any other sacred purpose . . . Moreover a golem is inferior even to the souls of women, and they are never counted for anything pertaining to a minyan.”

Defining “Personhood”

Right . . . . I am curious: Since when is a soul by itself, subject to gender? But that is another topic for future day.

It seems strange that the idea of a woman being a part of the minyan was not even a consideration, but the golem at least made the venerable rabbi pause for reflection. I suspect the Ortho-feminists of our time would most certainly have straightened Rabbi Ashkenazi out, if they could go back in time and argue with the rabbi.

Needless to say, a modern medical ethicist would definitely have serious problems with Rav Ashkenazi’s assertion that any person who  is artificially created– intrinsically–lacks the status of a “person.”

If Rav Askenazi’s logic is consistent, would a human being who  is in a deep comatose state also be considered like a “golem,” since he lacks the obvious visible signs of personhood?

Ultimately, it really boils down to the question: What is personhood? Using Descartes’ cogito ergo sum, if an entity is capable of thinking and self-reflection, then it is safe to presume it has the property of “personhood,” irregardless whether its origin is artificial or not. Equally important is the  matter of “reverence for life,” for once sentience and self-consciousness have been established, how can anyone not respect the “person” who possesses these two traits?

As one of my colleagues once said, “If you wish to see ten golems, just come to an evening service  at my Shul.”

Ditto . . .

————-

Notes:

[1] Responsa 93

Seducing By Scents

I came across an interesting article from House and Garden Magazine that illustrates just how much we have changed as a society over the last 300 years. It reads, “Legislation proposed in England in the 1700s: All women of whatever age, rank, profession, or degree, whether virgin, maid or widow, that shall impose upon, seduce and betray into matrimony any of His Majesty’s subjects, by scents, paints, cosmetic washes, artificial teeth, false hair, Spanish wool, iron stays, hoops, high‑heeled shoes or bolstered hips shall incur the penalty of the law now in force against witchcraft and the like misdemeanors and that marriage, upon conviction, shall stand null and void.” —- Act of Parliament, 1670

Incidentally, one of our readers (see comments) points out that this story was originally a joke that appeared in the magazine. That is an interesting thought, but who really knows for sure?

The Humble Beginnings of Women’s Liberation

Now move the clock ahead about 100 years later . . . Abagail Adams penned one of the most famous letters of her era, demanding that the new Declaration of Independence respect the rights of its female citizens, which she unabashedly says:

“I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws, which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power in the hands of the husbands. Remember all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation. That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute; but such of you as wish to be happy, willingly give tip the harsh title of master for the more tender and endearing one of friend. Why, then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity?” [1]

—-Abigail (Smith) Adams (1744-1818), Letter to John Adams, [March 31, 1776]

John Adam’s Fear of “Petticoat Despotism”

Her husband John Adams replied:

I cannot but laugh…We have been told that our struggle has loosened the bands of government everywhere; that children and apprentices were disobedient; that schools and colleges were grown turbulent; that Indians slighted their guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their masters. But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented. This is rather too coarse a compliment, but you are so saucy, I won’t blot it out. Depend on it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and in practice you know we are the subjects. We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight. [2]

Back to the Future: The early 2oth Century  Debate Concerning Women’s Suffrage

It is remarkable that the world has changed so much over the last 250 years. Some of you might be surprised to know that back in the 1915 many Orthodox rabbis opposed the right for women to vote. Woman’s suffrage proved to be a very divisive issue among American Orthodox Jews. Some rabbis felt that a women’s place is in the home. The rabbis feared that society will become corrupt should women invade the institutions of political power.

Chief Sephardic Rabbi Ben Tzion Uziel pointed out that there was nothing in the Torah to forbid women voting.  However, other rabbis argued, it’s against tradition—a woman’s place is in her home. Let the men worry about the politics!

Rabbi Uziel replied that in the olden days, men used to live in tents, in the desert, should we all go back to living in the wilderness just like our ancestors did? Ah, but the rabbis replied. If we give women equal rights to vote, they will want more freedom tomorrow, and who knows where that will lead to?

And That was Only the Beginning . . .

In a way, those early 20^th century Orthodox rabbis were right.

An interesting debate has been developing in the Orthodox Jewish community. And that is the issue of Women’s “Prayer Groups.” Some have taken offense to women having “Minyanim” because only men can have Minyans.

Outraged by the growth of Ortho-feminism, a Queens-Long Island council of Modern Orthodox rabbis, the event symbolized a larger, possibly dangerous trend – the growing acceptance of women’s prayer groups.

Its action this month to ban groups such as the one in Hillcrest that hosted the bat mitzvah has shocked hundreds of observant women worldwide and a number of Orthodox leaders, elicited at least two letters urging reconsideration, and caused one leader of the rabbinical council to resign.

“I see 25 years rolling back,” said Rachel Neumark Herlands, who is active in the Lincoln Square Synagogue prayer group on the Upper West Side. “I would like to say to the women [in Queens]: ‘Fight it. There are legitimate halachic supports for this.’ ”

The issue is really quite old. Leading Orthodox rabbis have frowned on women having Bat Mitzvas for many years. Begrudgingly, they said it was fine so long as the Bat Mitzva celebration doesn’t take place in the sanctuary. These rabbis have long felt that a woman cannot touch a Sefer Torah, because she may be ritually impure. Some early Sages said, that a woman shouldn’t even look at the Torah as it’s being raised. Kabbalists felt that even the gaze of menstruating woman is harmful [3], thus even touching the Torah became commonly viewed as forbidden in many Haredi circles [4].

A Question for the Ages

One modern Orthodox Jew wrote to an Orthodox zealot “that barring women from having a Torah service is in some ways, makes the Torah into a fetish, a veritable Golden Calf.” There is nothing whatsoever to bar someone from saying a blessing over the Torah. Prior to Gutenberg, there were no printed Pentateuchs like we all now have. Women were permitted to read and study from the Torah itself.

I ask you to hold this last thought in your minds — The Torah is not a fetish.  For those of you who don’t know what a fetish is, the Oxford Dictionary informs us: it is an inanimate object worshiped by primitive peoples for its supposed inherent magical powers or as being inhabited by a spirit. b a thing evoking irrational devotion or respect.

I found this analogy provocative, for indeed our parsha teaches us about the sin of the Golden Calf.

The story of course is well known to most of you. As Moses was working on the Ten Commandments, he appeared later than the people had originally expected. Thinking that Moses was dead, the Israelites decided to erect a calf to serve as the mouth piece where God would make His will known to the  Jewish people.

When Moses came down the mountain, he might have said something like, “Oy Vey’s Meire!” He then took the two tablets that were carved by the “finger of God” and smashed them into a million pieces! Was it due to anger or to grief, a sense of powerlessness? How could Moses do such a disrespectful thing? If someone took a Sefer Torah and decided to burn it, wouldn’t that be an extreme act of sacrilege.  How much more would this apply to the two tablets that were written by God.  Surely we have many prohibitions pertaining to bal tashchit– not being wasteful with God’s creation. How could Moses be so wasteful with the Two Tablets?

Even the Torah Can Become a Fetish

Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk once made a brilliant observation about this passage before us: “Torah and faith are the main aspects of the Jewish faith and all its sanctities e.g., Eretz Yisrael, Jerusalem are but the details. Don’t think that the sanctuary and the Temple are holy objects in their own right. Far be it! God dwells among His people and if they were like Adam who violated the covenant, all their sanctity is removed and they become as profane objects. . . .”

Moreover, even the tablets which were written by God Himself, are not holy in themselves, but are so only because of you — if you observe them. When the Israelites whored under the bridal canopy with the Golden Calf, the tablets became as mere pottery, for they had no sanctity in and of itself but become holy if you live a holy life. There is nothing in this world that is holy except for God. Nothing in creation is holy in itself, only in terms of the observance of the Torah. Let these words be written on the walls of every synagogue.

What Is It that Makes a Synagogue Holy?

By making the Torah off-limits to the women, the Orthodox have in effect, made a fetish out the Torah. What makes the Torah holy lies in its capacity to make us holy should we live by its precepts.

The issue is not about whether women receive an aliya or not; nor is it whether a woman’s prayer group is  “kosher,” or not, even though communal prayer is a rabbinic invention (which is a Halachic moot point). It is more about power and control. The sin of idolatry is about being able to control God to make God do what you want Him to do. Effigies in the ancient world were believed to confirm a certain measure of control over the gods, to make the gods as it were the subjective to their earthly masters. Today, the sacred synagogue is controlled much the same way by men–to the exclusion of women, who are for all practical purposes invisible and non-existent, since they have no voice in this debate.

Women are tired of being controlled by men. These Orthodox men who claim to speak in the name of faith are in reality trying to manipulate the faith. It’s not the honor of God that is at issue, it’s honor of men in control that is at stake. This worship of power is in my opinion — idolatrous. If having aliyot inspires women to be better Jews, then, the Women’s minyanim are a good thing that deserves support.

=====

Notes:

[1] The Ladies’ Repository for 1866 a Monthly Periodical, Devoted to Literature and Religion Volume 36 (New York: Poe & Hitchcock, 1868), 72.

[2] From The Letters of John and Abigail Adams, written while he was attending the Continental Congress, about to Declare Independence: quoted in John Adams, David McCullough. Reprinted in Diane Ravitch’s The American Reader: Words that Moved a Nation (New York: Harper Paperbacks, 2000), 57.

[3] See R. Moshe Isserles’ Darchei Moshe commentary on Tur Y.D. 195:14 in the name of Agur.

[4] Hayeh Adam 1:3; Magen Avraham on O.H. 88:2, note 153; Pri Hadash O.H.  88.

Intimidation tactics were routinely carried out for several decades until the last of the Jim Crow laws were banned once and for all by 1971, In 1971, the Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, upheld desegregation busing  of students to achieve integration.

Of course these laws also affected poor and illiterate Americans. Jews, blacks, and Asians could not purchase homes in certain restrictive neighborhoods until 1948, when the Supreme Court outlawed some forms of private discrimination in Shelley v. Kraemer 334 US 1 (1948).

Who would ever suspect that Jim Crow Laws would find a comfortable new home among the Haredim?  But this time the Haredi Jim Crow Laws target women. Consider the following examples:

Over the past few months, Israeli society has witnessed a whole series of newly constructed practices for what are undoubtedly extreme views of the need for gender segregation:
•  Separate sides of the street designated for a Sukkot holiday public festival in Jerusalem.

•  The corpse of a woman removed from its burial place because it was next to a man in Tiberias

•  Separate cashiers at the supermarket for men and women in Ramot.

•  Separate public buses for men and women in Bnei Brak, Jerusalem, and more

•  Separate El Al airline flights for men and women

•  Separate offices for men and women in Modi’in Illit (some companies will not hire women in a company where men work)

•  Separate exit times from synagogue in Safed (women were locked inside until all the men left)

•  Banning of women from cemeteries in places including Elyachin, and silencing of women’s cries of mourning.

•  The removal of all pictures of women from public advertisements – even women politicians, like Kadima head and former prime ministerial candidate MK Tzipi Livni

•  The Photoshopped “erasure” of women cabinet members from Orthodox newspaper photos

•  The covering up of dancers during a bridge opening ceremony in Jerusalem.

•  Soldiers walking out of an army convocation ceremony because women were singing.

•  Separate sections in the pharmacy for men and women in Bnei Brak.

More recently, women wearing prayer shawls also got arrested because they wanted to worship at the Western Wall.

Obviously, we cannot become a light unto the nations until we first become a light unto ourselves.

=================

Posted by: Yochanan Lavie |