Jewish Women’s Torah Study: Orthodox Religious Education and Modernity 9781315885032

Table of contents :
Cover......Page 1
Jewish Women’s Torah Study......Page 2
Title Page......Page 6
Copyright Page......Page 7
Table of Contents......Page 10
Acknowledgments......Page 13
List of acronyms......Page 14
Notes on transliteration......Page 16
Introduction......Page 18
The sources......Page 20
Overview......Page 22
1 Women’s Torah studies: the halachic infrastructure......Page 26
The tannaitic and amoraic material......Page 28
The medieval interpretation of the Mishnah......Page 31
The talmudic debate and the medieval interpretations......Page 32
Professor Weiss Halivni’s approach......Page 34
The adjudication of the Rishonim (twelfth–fourteenth centuries)......Page 35
The adjudication of the Halacha in the primary legal codes......Page 38
Late medieval sources......Page 39
2 Fighting assimilation: women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy......Page 48
Historical role of Beis Yaakov institutions......Page 51
Women’s educational institutions in pre-state Israel......Page 53
The first rabbinic reactions to changes in women’s education......Page 55
The Rabbinic Conference in Cracow: a public discussion among Eastern European Rabbis......Page 60
Vayelaket Yosef: a public debate in early twentieth-century Europe......Page 61
Rabbi Ze’ev Leiter: a call for change......Page 64
Oẓar Haḥaim: neo-Orthodox opposition to women’s Torah study......Page 66
Torat Yeruḥam: between the wars......Page 67
Responsa Zkan Aharon: a leading decisor of the interwar period......Page 69
Rabbi Ephraim Biliẓer: support for Beis Yaakov from Hungarian Orthodoxy......Page 72
Conclusion......Page 73
3 Women’s education and the learners’ society: women’s education in ḥaredi society......Page 80
The new Beis Yaakov......Page 81
Or Hameir (1941): debates in the nascent ḥaredi community in Israel......Page 84
Post-Holocaust responses......Page 92
Three conservative voices: Rabbis Vozner, Rubin, and Gross......Page 96
Rabbi Eli’ezer Valdenberg and the Tsanz Rebbe: a debate about the essence of women......Page 101
Rabbi Joseph Shalom Elyashiv: the “Decisor of the Generation”......Page 109
Conclusion......Page 111
4 Torah study for women in the New World: the American experience......Page 119
Education in the New World......Page 121
Rabbi Ḥaim Hirshenzon: a call for modern and liberal Orthodoxy......Page 122
R. Hirshenzon’s approach to women’s status......Page 123
Women’s Torah study in the writings of R. Hirshenzon......Page 124
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein......Page 127
Rabbi Feinstein’s attitude toward women through the lens of his non-halachic writings......Page 128
Attitudes to women’s Torah study in Igrot Moshe......Page 130
Letter to R. Meir Fund......Page 131
Gender-based education......Page 134
“On Women’s Liberation”......Page 139
Conclusion......Page 140
5 “Women shall encircle man”: Women’s Torah study in the teachings of R. Menaḥem Mendel Schneerson......Page 145
The shali’aḥ and the sheluḥa......Page 147
Women and Ḥabad, women in Ḥabad......Page 149
License for women to study Torah in the writings of the Seventh Rebbe......Page 150
Women and the study of Ḥasidism......Page 156
Study of the works of Maimonides......Page 157
Igrot Hakodesh......Page 158
“For the upper and lower world cannot be sustained without the female”......Page 161
The convergence of messianism and women’s Torah study......Page 163
Conclusion......Page 166
6 Satmar and women’s education: education as a root cause of promiscuit......Page 175
Satmar in America......Page 176
Education of young women......Page 177
R. Teitelbaum’s position concerning women’s Torah study......Page 178
Rabbi Samuel Judah Geshtetner: Satmar’s views of womanhood......Page 185
The polemics of 1997......Page 195
Conclusion......Page 199
7 Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study......Page 205
The religious reforms of Modern Orthodoxy......Page 206
Discussions of women’s Torah study between the late 1950s and the 1980s......Page 207
The founders of religious education in Israel and their views on women’s education......Page 211
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook and women’s Torah study......Page 213
Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik: the first stages of women’s education in moderate Orthodoxy......Page 214
Transitional opinions about women’s education......Page 216
The Woman and her Education: the next generation of religious Zionist Rabbis......Page 218
Minimizing the prohibition: Rabbis Goren and Henkin......Page 221
A changing point: the tension between Torah study and feminism......Page 224
The ideological halachic discussion beginning in the 1990s......Page 225
Women’s Torah study as culture war......Page 227
A post-modernist view of women’s Torah study......Page 228
Conclusion......Page 234
Conclusion......Page 244
Glossary of non-English terms......Page 248
Bibliography......Page 256
Index of modern scholars......Page 273
Index of persons......Page 274
Index of canonical citations......Page 278
General index......Page 279

Citation preview

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Jewish Women’s Torah Study

The cornerstone of the Jewish religious experience in all its variations is Torah study, and learning is considered a central criterion for leadership. Jewish Women’s Torah Study addresses the question of women’s integration into the halachic-religious system in the modern era. The contemporary debate about women’s Torah study first emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century. As women’s status in broader society changed, offering increased legal rights and opportunities for education, a debate on the need to change women’s participation in Torah study became all the more acute. Orthodoxy was faced with a question: which aspects, if any, of modernity should be integrated into Halacha? Exemplifying the entire array of Orthodox responses to modernity, this book is a valuable addition to the scholarship of Judaism in the modern era and will be of interest to students and scholars of religion, gender studies and Jewish studies. Ilan Fuchs is a research associate in the Hadassah Brandeis Institute Project on Gender, Culture, Religion and Law. His interests include Jewish law, history of Jewish Orthodoxy, and gender and religion. His most recent articles include “Women’s Testimony in Jewish Law” (forthcoming, Hebrew Union College Annual ) and “The Yeshiva as a Political Institution” (forthcoming, Modern Judaism).

Routledge Jewish Studies Series

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Series Editor: Oliver Leaman, University of Kentucky

Studies, which are interpreted to cover the disciplines of history, sociology, anthropology, culture, politics, philosophy, theology, religion, as they relate to Jewish affairs. The remit includes texts which have as their primary focus issues, ideas, personalities and events of relevance to Jews, Jewish life and the concepts which have characterized Jewish culture both in the past and today. The series is interested in receiving appropriate scripts or proposals. MEDIEVAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHY An Introduction Dan Cohn-Sherbok

JUDAISM, PHILOSOPHY, CULTURE Selected Studies by E. I. J. Rosenthal Erwin Rosenthal

FACING THE OTHER The Ethics of Emmanuel Levinas Edited by Seán Hand

PHILOSOPHY OF THE TALMUD Hyam Maccoby

MOSES MAIMONIDES Oliver Leaman

FROM SYNAGOGUE TO CHURCH: THE TRADITIONAL DESIGN Its Beginning, its Definition, its End John Wilkinson

A USER’S GUIDE TO FRANZ ROSENZWEIG’S STAR OF REDEMPTION Norbert M. Samuelson ON LIBERTY Jewish Philosophical Perspectives Edited by Daniel H. Frank REFERRING TO GOD Jewish and Christian Philosophical and Theological Perspectives Edited by Paul Helm

HIDDEN PHILOSOPHY OF HANNAH ARENDT Margaret Betz Hull DECONSTRUCTING THE BIBLE Abraham ibn Ezra’s Introduction to the Torah Irene Lancaster

IMAGE OF THE BLACK IN JEWISH CULTURE A History of the Other Abraham Melamed

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

FROM FALASHAS TO ETHIOPIAN JEWS Daniel Summerfield PHILOSOPHY IN A TIME OF CRISIS Don Isaac Abravanel: Defender of the Faith Seymour Feldman JEWS, MUSLIMS AND MASS MEDIA Mediating the “Other” Edited by Tudor Parfitt with Yulia Egorova JEWS OF ETHIOPIA The Birth of an Elite Edited by Emanuela Trevisan Semi and Tudor Parfitt ART IN ZION The Genesis of National Art in Jewish Palestine Dalia Manor HEBREW LANGUAGE AND JEWISH THOUGHT David Patterson CONTEMPORARY JEWISH PHILOSOPHY An Introduction Irene Kajon ANTISEMITISM AND MODERNITY Innovation and Continuity Hyam Maccoby

JEWS AND INDIA History, Image, Perceptions Yulia Egorova JEWISH MYSTICISM AND MAGIC An Anthropological Perspective Maureen Bloom MAIMONIDES’ GUIDE TO THE PERPLEXED: SILENCE AND SALVATION Donald McCallum MUSCULAR JUDAISM The Jewish Body and the Politics of Regeneration Todd Samuel Presner JEWISH CULTURAL NATIONALISM David Aberbach THE JEWISH-CHINESE NEXUS A Meeting of Civilizations Edited by M. Avrum Ehrlich GERMAN-JEWISH POPULAR CULTURE BEFORE THE HOLOCAUST Kafka’s Kitsch David Brenner THE JEWS AS A CHOSEN PEOPLE Tradition and Transformation S. Leyla Gürkan PHILOSOPHY AND RABBINIC CULTURE Jewish Interpretation and Controversy in Medieval Languedoc Gregg Stern

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

JEWISH BLOOD Reality and Metaphor in History, Religion and Culture Edited by Mitchell B. Hart JEWISH EDUCATION AND HISTORY Continuity, Crisis and Change Moshe Aberbach; Edited and translated by David Aberbach JEWS AND JUDAISM IN MODERN CHINA M. Avrum Ehrlich POLITICAL THEOLOGIES IN THE HOLY LAND Israeli Messianism and its Critics David Ohana COLLABORATION WITH THE NAZIS The Holocaust and After Edited by Roni Stauber THE GLOBAL IMPACT OF THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION A Century-Old Myth Edited by Esther Webman THE HOLOCAUST AND REPRESENTATIONS OF THE JEWS History and Identity in the Museum K. Hannah Holtschneider WAR AND PEACE IN JEWISH TRADITION From the Biblical World to the Present Edited by Yigal Levin and Amnon Shapira

JESUS AMONG THE JEWS Representation and Thought Edited by Neta Stahl GOD, JEWS AND THE MEDIA Religion and Israel’s Media Yoel Cohen RABBINIC THEOLOGY AND JEWISH INTELLECTUAL HISTORY The Great Rabbi Loew of Prague Meir Seidler ISRAELI HOLOCAUST RESEARCH Birth and Evolution Boaz Cohen MODERN GNOSIS AND ZIONISM The Crisis of Culture, Life Philosophy and Jewish National Thought Yotam Hotam THE EUROPEAN JEWS, PATRIOTISM AND THE LIBERAL STATE 1789–1939 A Study of Literature and Social Psychology David Aberbach JEWISH WOMEN’S TORAH STUDY Orthodox Religious Education and Modernity Ilan Fuchs

Jewish Women’s Torah Study

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Orthodox Religious Education and Modernity

Ilan Fuchs

First published 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

© 2014 Ilan Fuchs The right of Ilan Fuchs to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Fuchs, Ilan. Jewish women’s Torah study : Orthodox religious education and modernity / Ilan Fuchs. pages cm. -- (Routledge Jewish studies series) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Jewish religious education of women. 2. Orthodox Judaism. 3. Feminism--Religious aspects--Judaism. 4. Sex role--Religious aspects-Judaism. 5. Jewish women--Religious life. 6. Judaism--21th century. I. Title. BM71.F83 2014 296.6'8082--dc23 2013015926 ISBN: 978-0-415-85847-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-88503-2 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Taylor & Francis Books

‫לדינה‪-‬מרים פוקס נ"י‬ ‫…ממשבצות זהב לבושה )תהלים מה‪ ,‬יד(‬

‫‪Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017‬‬

‫לפולה שלפרוק‪-‬גלבאום ז"ל‬ ‫למרים פוקס ז"ל‬ ‫אשת חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה )משלי לא‪ ,‬י(‬

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

This page intentionally left blank

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Contents

Acknowledgments List of acronyms Notes on transliteration

1

2

xii xiii xv

Introduction The sources 3 Overview 5

1

Women’s Torah studies: the halachic infrastructure The tannaitic and amoraic material 11 The medieval interpretation of the Mishnah 14 The talmudic debate and the medieval interpretations 15 Professor Weiss Halivni’s approach 17 The adjudication of the Rishonim (twelfth–fourteenth centuries) 18 The adjudication of the Halacha in the primary legal codes Late medieval sources 22

9

Fighting assimilation: women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy Historical role of Beis Yaakov institutions 34 Women’s educational institutions in pre-state Israel 36 The first rabbinic reactions to changes in women’s education The Rabbinic Conference in Cracow: a public discussion among Eastern European Rabbis 43 Vayelaket Yosef: a public debate in early twentieth-century Europe 44 Rabbi Ze’ev Leiter: a call for change 47 Oz.ar Hah.aim: neo-Orthodox opposition to women’s Torah study 49 Torat Yeruh.am: between the wars 50 Responsa Zkan Aharon: a leading decisor of the interwar period 52

21

31

38

x

Contents Rabbi Ephraim Biliz.er: support for Beis Yaakov from Hungarian Orthodoxy 55 Conclusion 56

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

3

4

5

Women’s education and the learners’ society: women’s education in h.aredi society The new Beis Yaakov 64 Or Hameir (1941): debates in the nascent h.aredi community in Israel 67 Post-Holocaust responses 75 Three conservative voices: Rabbis Vozner, Rubin, and Gross 79 Rabbi Eli’ezer Valdenberg and the Tsanz Rebbe: a debate about the essence of women 84 Rabbi Joseph Shalom Elyashiv: the “Decisor of the Generation” 92 Conclusion 94 Torah study for women in the New World: the American experience Education in the New World 104 Rabbi H . aim Hirshenzon: a call for modern and liberal Orthodoxy 105 R. Hirshenzon’s approach to women’s status 106 Women’s Torah study in the writings of R. Hirshenzon 107 Rabbi Moshe Feinstein 110 Rabbi Feinstein’s attitude toward women through the lens of his non-halachic writings 111 Attitudes to women’s Torah study in Igrot Moshe 113 Letter to R. Meir Fund 114 Gender-based education 117 “On Women’s Liberation” 122 Conclusion 123 “Women shall encircle man”: Women’s Torah study in the teachings of R. Menah.em Mendel Schneerson The shali’ah. and the sheluh.a 130 Women and H . abad, women in H . abad 132 License for women to study Torah in the writings of the Seventh Rebbe 133 Women and the study of H . asidism 139 Study of the works of Maimonides 140 Igrot Hakodesh 141 “For the upper and lower world cannot be sustained without the female” 144

63

102

128

Contents The convergence of messianism and women’s Torah study Conclusion 149

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

6

7

xi

146

Satmar and women’s education: education as a root cause of promiscuity Satmar in America 159 Education of young women 160 R. Teitelbaum’s position concerning women’s Torah study 161 The Satmar community after the days of R. Teitelbaum 168 Rabbi Samuel Judah Geshtetner: Satmar’s views of womanhood 168 The polemics of 1997 178 Conclusion 182

158

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study The religious reforms of Modern Orthodoxy 189 Discussions of women’s Torah study between the late 1950s and the 1980s 190 The founders of religious education in Israel and their views on women’s education 194 Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook and women’s Torah study 196 Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik: the first stages of women’s education in moderate Orthodoxy 197 Transitional opinions about women’s education 199 The Woman and her Education: the next generation of religious Zionist Rabbis 201 Minimizing the prohibition: Rabbis Goren and Henkin 204 A changing point: the tension between Torah study and feminism 207 The ideological halachic discussion beginning in the 1990s 208 Women’s Torah study as culture war 210 A post-modernist view of women’s Torah study 211 Conclusion 217

188

Conclusion

227

Glossary of non-English terms Bibliography Index of modern scholars Index of persons Index of canonical citations General index

231 239 256 257 261 262

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Acknowledgments

The book you are holding in your hands is the result of a research project spanning a decade. It began as a master’s thesis in Hebrew and later became an important part of my doctoral dissertation at Bar-Ilan University. I enjoyed the guidance of both professors Kimmy Caplan and Amichai Radzyner, who draft after draft challenged me to improve my arguments and deepen my analysis. The work seemed endless but they never gave up. After finishing my dissertation I planned to move on to other avenues of research, but that plan evaporated after I was invited to spend two years at Tulane University in New Orleans. At Tulane, I was fortunate to meet Professor Brian Horowitz, an insightful and thought-provoking historian who convinced me to work on a book based on my dissertation, a book about women’s Torah study. Brian’s keen insight and kind heart were a constant aid in a three-year project to translate and edit the book in front of you. I continued the work during my stay at the University of Calgary as a visiting professor in the Israel studies program and then as a research fellow in the Hadassah-Brandeis Institute, Boston. The wonderful library at Brandeis and the constant encouragement from Professor Shulamit Reinharz, the head of the institute, helped me to bring the work to a conclusion. This project would not have been possible without the help of Dr. Karl Gerlach. His intimate knowledge of the English language and keen academic instincts helped turn my dissertation into a book. He never ceased to amaze me, untangling sentences heading nowhere and salvaging my ideas when they disappeared beneath a mountain of words. I can only hope that I learned from him. Finally, I wish to thank my family, who have supported me all along the way. My parents, Daniel and Hava Fuchs, have steadied me through the turbulences of an academic career and my mother spent days proofreading and correcting. My wife Sarah and children Dina-Miryam and Asher-Tzvi have been living with this book for years and it is a part of our daily lives. Our third child Leah-Pola was born two days after the final manuscript was sent to the press. It seems we will need to find a new companion. Ilan Fuchs Waltham on the River Charles

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

List of acronyms

Alter Rebbe Bah. Besht = Ba’al Sem Tov H . afez. H . ayyim H . atam Sofer H . azon Ish HIAS H . YDA Maharam Shik Maharil Maharsha Maharshal Malbim (The) Me’iri Mendele Moykher Sforim Pri hadash

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (Borukhovich) 1745–1812 Bayit H . adash, lit. “new house,” written by Rabbi Joel Sirkis, 1561–1640 Rabbi Yisroel ben Eliezer c. 1698–1760 Rabbi Yisrael Meir Hakohen of Radin 1838–1933 Rabbi Moses Sofer (Schreiber) 1762–1839 Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz 1878–1973 Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society Rabbi H . ayyim Joseph David Azulai 1724–1806 Rabbi Moshe Shik 1807–1879 Rabbi Jacob b. Moses Moellin c. 1365–1427 Rabbi Shmuel Edels 1555–1631 Rabbi Shlomo Luria 1510–1573 Rabbi Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michael Weisser 1809–1879 Rabbi Menachem Me’iri 1249–c. 1310 Sholem Yankev Abramovich 1836–1917 Rabbi Hiskiyahu Desilva 1659–1698

xiv List of acronyms Rabbeinu Tam Rashab Rashal or Maharshal Rashi

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

(The) Rav Ravad Rayatz (also known as the friediker Rebbe = previous Rebbe) Rambam

Rabbi Jacob ben Meir 1100–171 Rabbi Shalom Dov-Ber Schneersohn 1860–1920 Rabbi Solomon Luria 1510–1573 Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki 1040–1104 Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik 1903–1993 Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquières c. 1125–1198 Rabbi Joseph Isaac Schneersohn 1880–1950

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Moses Maimonides) 1135–1204 ReMA Rabbi Moshe Isserles 1520–1572 RI”F Rabbi Isaac Alfasi 1013–1103 Rogatchover Gaon Rabbi Yosef Rosen 1858–1936 RoSH (also Rabbenu Asher) Rabbi Asher ben Jehiel-Ashkenazi 1250 or 1259–1327 Seer of Lublin Rabbi Jacob Isaac Horowitz 1745–1815 Shagar Rabbi Shimon Gershon Rosenberg 1950–2007 shlit”a Sheyizkeh Lyamim tovim arukhim; lit. “may he live days that are pleasant and long.” Taz Shulh.an Arukh Turey Zahav, lit. “rows of gold,” written by David Halevi Segal (c. 1586–1667) Tur Arba‘ah Turim, lit. “four pillars,” halakhic code composed by R. Yaakov ben Asher (1270–c.1340). Zkan Aharon Rabbi Aharon Volkin 1865–1942

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Notes on Transliteration

1. The transliteration system for Hebrew and Yiddish is based on the rules of the Encyclopedia Judaica, second edition. 2. Names were transliterated if there is no acceptable English form of the name, or if the specific individual wrote his/her name in a transliterated English form. 3. Hebrew or Yiddish words that have an accepted, popular transliteration were transliterated according to the popular form. 4. Names of authors were transliterated in the way they appear in the Library of Congress catalogue. 5. Rabbis usually known in rabbinic literature by an acronym appear for the first time with their full names and the acronym in parentheses. All subsequent references are made using the acronym.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

This page intentionally left blank

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Introduction

I testify by the Heavens and the Earth, whether non-Jew or Israelite, whether man or woman, whether a male-slave or a female one, all is according to the merit of his or her deed–so the Holy Spirit rests upon him or her. —Eliyaho Raba 4:4

Torah study in Jewish religious culture exceeds the mere boundaries of religious education: the study itself is a religious experience, in fact the ultimate religious experience.1 The commandment to study, however, is a duty only for men. Women have generally not partaken in this central element in Jewish religious life. Torah study, Yeshayahu Leibowitz says, is unlike any other commandment. Most commandments are to be accepted as divine decrees without question: commandments cannot be redefined merely to reflect modern values. The study of Torah by women is different, however, because it is impossible to have an authentic Jewish religious experience without it.2 If women do not study Torah, Leibowitz warns, Judaism as a religion could be destroyed: Completely different from all this is the matter of study of Torah, even though this is also a positive commandment, and one of the most important positive commandments, but after discussions that were conducted on this matter in the history of the world of Halacha, it was determined in the accepted Halacha that women are exempt from this commandment – and this is a grave error and a great disaster for historical Judaism. Because Torah study beyond its meaning as fulfilling a commandment makes a Jewish person part of the cultural heritage of Judaism and its spiritual contents, one can almost say makes one a partner in the residing of shechina [a term referring to feminine imagery of God] among the people of Israel. Distancing Torah study from a woman is not freeing her from this duty (like freeing her from other commandments) but denying her a basic right: her “Jewishness” is made inferior to that of a man.3

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

2

Introduction

I wish to shed light on an area scholarship has until now left untouched: the reactions of Orthodox halachic leadership to changes in the status of women, to be mapped out by analyzing their halachic interpretation in the debate about women and Torah study. Rhetorical context explains why historical and sociological conditions engender vastly different interpretations to canonical Jewish texts. Reaching from the mid-nineteenth century to the beginning of the twenty-first, these texts also take part in other social discourses such as feminism, changes in gender roles, assimilation, acculturation, secularization, and Zionism – all reflecting a changing social reality challenging a religious community in the modern period. Until recently, research on the role of women in Judaism has focused on issues such as personal status and the practical fulfillment of commandments.4 Scholars with a more feminist outlook have looked at women’s lives within conservative Orthodox society to show how women adapt to their status and enable the existence of a patriarchal society. There are also discussions about Modern Orthodoxy and its attempts to enlarge the scope of women’s participation in religious life.5 Historical research on Jewish women has developed two different trajectories: first, the story of the lives of Jewish women, a story most scholars have neglected and ignored. Second, to go beyond the mere description of women’s lives and to analyze the power struggle between the genders, a struggle that leaves women marginalized and excluded. The first trajectory sees women with a different history than men, in the sense that this history has been marginalized from the central issues of society; the second sees the history of women as part of the larger story.6 Focusing mostly on the lives of women in Europe and America, previous research has discussed the process of secularization among women, the dissolution of the boundaries of traditional Jewish society and new walls erected by a conservative establishment attempting to block the dangerous effects of modernity. Scholarship remaining in a more traditional framework focuses on women and attempts to explain their marginalization. In research on Halacha, Elimelech Westreich and Avraham Grossman attempt to describe changes in women’s status in the Middle Ages. Westreich focuses on marriage and divorce, while Grossman describes changes of interpretation of halachic norms of commerce, partially stemming from women’s growing participation in economic activities. Recently, another area has become the focus of scholarship: women’s education.7 Women’s education was one of the most important topics on the agenda of Eastern European Maskhilim,8 for whom general educational reforms were a primary concern.9 The Maskhilim massively criticize the traditional h.eder10 and called for extensive reforms in the rather homespun educational system they had experienced themselves.11 As well as easing traditional strictures for purely practical reasons there was also substantive ideological justification for women’s education. Mendele Moykher Sforim, for example, saw this as one of the most important objectives of the Haskhala movement.12

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Introduction

3

As a result of the Haskhala and the process of modernization in Eastern Europe, young Jewish women had alternatives.13 The first Jewish schools for girls were established in Poland in the beginning of the nineteenth century, under government rather than rabbinic supervision.14 Similar schools were founded in Imperial Russia.15 Schools were scarce in Poland;16 in Russia the figures were not much higher, yet there was a growing perception that women without a significant Jewish education were much more liable to secularization. Similar schools sprang up in the parts of Eastern Europe under Austro-Hungarian control.17 The legal discussions analyzed in this book were mainly published in halachic venues, summarizing the customary halachic discourse with an overview of the dominant legal sources. Since the number of sources in the halachic canon concerning women’s Torah study is minimal, this can be done rather quickly. In the modern era, however, the issue often becomes a hot topic on the agenda of Orthodox society, producing a wider array of texts exemplifying a debate that goes beyond a narrow legal analysis. Change in women’s religious education, whether specifically acknowledged or not, is seen as a part of a larger move to change women’s roles in Jewish life. Though these texts may appear to deal with a localized issue, the positions Orthodox leaders take here also show how they stand in the larger debate about women’s roles in Jewish society and even more broadly, about their approach to modern values such as equality. Systematic analysis of decisors’ (poskim)18 rulings sheds light on the interplay of continuation and change into the modern era. Also of considerable interest are the halachic techniques decisors use to fortify their position. Each decisor sees a different reality and different dangers, even at the same time and place. Their writings project different models of the Orthodox Jewish woman and the boundaries of her Jewish and secular knowledge. The way in which halachic debate developed – the reasoning, choice of sources, and deviation from traditional interpretation – all reveal extrahalachic motivations and spoken or unspoken assumptions about social reality. Since the question of women’s status was at the forefront of twentieth century discourse, these texts also witness to a process of modernization that forced Orthodox leaders to deal with secularization, assimilation, and acculturation. Another objective of this book is phenomenological. I wish to learn how halachic texts perceive women. These texts are full of imagery: stereotypes old and new in portraying an ideal Jewish woman.

The sources The primary sources examined in this book are halachic: texts written, virtually all by men, concerning women’s Torah study from a halachic perspective. The authors are not necessarily decisors: the book deals with rabbinic

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

4

Introduction

discourse, but not necessarily from those at the top of the pyramid of Orthodox leadership. By halachic discourse I mean discussions by those who see themselves bound by Halacha, the entire body of Jewish law, their position molded to their interpretation of the relevant halachic texts. This analysis identifies the limits of Orthodox approaches to modernity, creating a panoramic view of the different methods Orthodox leadership uses to answer the challenges of modernity. Along the way, we discover what changes provoked fear in this community, how the rabbinical leadership chose to deal with the challenge, and finally whether halachic adjudicators influence – or were influenced by – the process of modernization. These changes stem from a different perception of women in general: these are rarely discussions of women as individuals but women as a class. Using responsa literature as historical sources is not always straightforward.19 In looking at responsa from medieval Ashkenaz, H . aym Soloveitchik warns of several difficulties. Some have to do with the philological aspect of handwritten literature, a moot point after the age of print. But there is another aspect still relevant: the consciousness of the author of his environment, in other words, historical context. This genre does not often deal explicitly with the influence of non-legal factors on Halacha, an influence generally remaining subtextual. A careful reading, however, can illumine the external variables in the halachic equation that lead the decisor to adopt a certain answer to specific needs.20 Another source not usually discussed in halachic research is Orthodox rabbinical journals. Historical research has long used media resources to determine broad public trends, and scholars of Jewish history have also looked at the Jewish press.21 These sources have a dual importance: first, they can teach us about the perceptions of Orthodox rabbis, specifically on issues of women’s status. Second, they teach us about their perception of the halachic situation, beginning with the normative interpretation of halachic texts and how these texts are then re-read, adapted, and ultimately given a new interpretation. Journal articles are usually highly topical: they tend to discuss issues as they unfold and thus taken as a whole provide a series of snapshots of changing perceptions as they occur. If a debate spreads over a longer time, the journals help identify a process where an innovative halachic interpretation is first shaped, then amended, until it is accepted by decisors and the rabbinic world. This book also uses primary sources from archives and ideological and polemical texts, some of them with halachic validity among certain groups in various times. Responsa literature is mostly couched in a legal language only indirectly referring to the historical and sociological conditions affecting the debate. To learn decisors’ views on the historical context that may inform their rulings, there is a need to cross-reference sources and to identify a possible subtext. The use of journals helps meet these challenges, since in this genre the writing is both more free and topical, thus yielding more information about broader cultural influences.

Introduction

5

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Overview Canonical texts set the parameters of any discussion on women’s Torah study. These texts from the Mishnah, Talmud, Rishonim, and from various halachic codes are interpreted and reinterpreted by rabbis throughout time in many different and sometimes conflicting variations. In the modern era, these texts were placed in a different context: when confronted with discussion on reform in women’s religious education, contemporary halachic scholars acknowledged, related to, responded to, and at times amended these traditional opinions. The underlining assumptions about gender in the canonical literature are that there are two spheres, a man’s world and a woman’s world. This dimorphic element is not merely biological, but ontological, and its source is metaphysical. The difference between men and women is not the result of historical or cultural context but an immutable law of nature dictated by God. The different realms of gender also dictate different modes of piety and ritual. Women’s world centers around home and children. Her religious life is played out in this private space rather than the public sphere controlled by men. Her religiosity is described as based on emotion and an intuitive, natural faith rather than intellectual study of texts. The earliest texts come from an Eastern European Orthodoxy that will later become known as h.aredi. In the second half of the nineteenth century Eastern European Jewish communities began calling for reforms in the traditional education system. Young women’s education occupied an important place in this campaign, and eventually the Beis Yaakov school was founded in 1917, rapidly growing within a few years into a far-reaching school system throughout Europe. Beis Yaakov aimed to provide a more sophisticated Jewish education for young women while reinforcing the image of the ideal Jewish woman as depicted by the community’s leadership. While scholarship on Beis Yaakov is minimal, h.aredi education in general has been the subject of several research projects in education and the social sciences.22 The dominant h.aredi approach after the Holocaust was that Beis Yaakov was crucial for the future of h.aredi society. The educational system for girls promoted a vision of a woman supportive of a future husband’s Torah study, even though she would become the sole family provider. At the same time, Beis Yaakov put strict limits on women’s access to the Talmud. This understanding informs many halachic texts from the Viznitzs h.asidic community, along with Rabbi Vozner, who is associated with Hungarian Ultra-Orthodoxy, and others such as Rabbi Shakh, who for several decades led the LithuanianMitnagdic camp. These texts describe the ideal Jewish woman, the perceived inherent cognitive abilities of women, and the dangers perceived to the h.aredi ways of life by changes in their role and status. Ultimately, the h.aredi approach to women and Torah study allows women a religious education but places strict limits on what they may learn. Community leaders suggest that the primary purpose of educating women is

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

6

Introduction

to strengthen their Jewish identity and, as a result, to fight secularization, rather than create opportunities for increased involvement in Jewish communal life. Encouraging women to abide by established communal norms and not challenge the status quo, this approach has immediate practical and economic ramifications, as wives are expected to assume financial responsibility for their households while their husbands pursue full-time religious studies. In light of this firm policy we find interesting variations in America. Here, from the onset of religious education for women, Torah study became a pressing matter. Drawing on source material from American Orthodox journals published in the 1930s, the current study examines the beginning of communal discussion on the state of women’s religious education. Ultimately, these texts reveal a collision between traditional interpretation of sacred texts and modern values. American Orthodox leaders struggled to reassess the traditional value system they had fostered in the “old country,” and to acknowledge changing economic and social realities in the “new world” that granted women much more freedom and equality in the public sphere. One of the most well-known rabbinic figures in American Orthodoxy was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who wished to create a sense of continuity by allowing women access to Torah study within the boundaries defined by the Beis Yaakov school system. His main objections to exceeding those limits stem from the fear that such actions would be seen as straying too far from tradition, negative criticism of earlier rabbinic decisors, and as reflecting feminist notions that call for changes in the traditional Jewish woman’s status. The American scene also owes much to one of the most influential leaders in the Jewish world in the second part of the twentieth century: Rabbi Menah.em Mendel Schneerson, the H . abad-Lubavitch Rebbe. He actively promoted women’s Jewish education, and while he was less moved by pressures to recognize the equal status of women in the modern world, he was unique in placing women at the heart of social change and redemption. His writings never convey a sense of social or economic necessity in changing women’s education: change is not portrayed as a result of external pressure but of an internal process of spiritual elevation connected to the messianic process. Women’s Torah study is intertwined with a deeper change in their status in light of the imminent eschaton. As mirror image there is Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe, who denied women any access to Torah study. Insular and resistant to change, he believed that the religious education of women would undermine continuity in Jewish life by threatening traditional gender roles and expectations. Reinterpreting traditional texts that discuss women’s Torah study in order to further minimize an already taboo practice, Teitelbaum even objected to the mainstream Orthodox Beis Yaakov school system. Other texts from this community voice an identical opposition to women’s Torah study, at the same time invoking stereotypes of women that shimmer with seduction, cunningness, or deception.

Introduction

7

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Unlike other Orthodox streams, moderate Orthodox texts openly acknowledge the challenges of liberal and modern values of equality and feminism on traditional halachic interpretation. The only Orthodox group to create institutions for women’s higher Torah learning, moderate Orthodoxy responds to the goals of religious feminism. As this community engages in largely ideological, philosophical discussion, I was able to locate numerous primary sources that deal directly with the tension among religious philosophy, liberalism and modernity as they relate to women’s religious experience.

Notes 1 For the role of Torah study in canonical sources, see: Ronen Ah.ituv, “Yeshu’ah Belimud Torah: Hate’ologyah shel Limud Torah Bamishnah U’batalmud,” Al Hatshuvah Ve’al Hageulah – Minh.at Shai Lebinyamin Gross, Dov Shwartz et al. eds. (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2008), 135–59. 2 Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Emunah Historyah Ve’arakhim (Jerusalem: Akadamon Press, 1982), 71–74. 3 Leibowitz, Emuna, 72. 4 For the role of women in the public religious sphere, see: Avraham Grossman, Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe, Jonathan Chipman trans. (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2004). 5 Paula Hyman, Gender and Assimilation in Modern Jewish History: The Rules and Presentation of Women (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1995); Tamar El-Or, Educated and Ignorant: Ultraorthodox Jewish Women and Their World H . aim Watzman, trans. (Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1994); Tamar El-Or, Next Year I Will Know More: Literacy and Identity Among Young Women in Israel trans. H . aim Watzman (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2002); Elisheva Baumgarten, Mothers and Children: Jewish Family Life in Medieval Europe: Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). 6 Joan Scott, “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” American Historical Review 91:5 (1986), 1056–61. 7 Elimelech Westreich, Tmurot Bema’amad Ha’ishah Bamishpat Ha’ivri (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002). 8 The Haskhala movement was the Jewish wing of the Enlightenment. Its adherents, known as Maskhilim, sought to modernize Jewish society. In Eastern Europe they called for changes in traditional Jewish society: adoption of liberal values, changing the economic structure, improving education, etc. Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish Enlightenment (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). 9 Eliana Adler, “Women’s Education In The Russian Jewish Press,” Polin 18 (2006), 121–32. 10 Literally, “room,” the name of the typical Jewish elementary school in Eastern Europe. Strongly criticized by the Maskhilim as not being professional enough, hygienically problematic, with poor instruction in secular topics, etc. See Brian Horowitz, Jewish Philanthropy and Enlightenment in late-Tsarist Russia (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009), 95–158. 11 Adler, “Women’s Education In The Russian Jewish Press,” 122. 12 Adler, “Women’s Education In The Russian Jewish Press,” 124. 13 For an overview of the current research on women in Eastern Europe, see: ChaeRan Freeze and Paula Hyman, “Introduction: A Historiographical Survey,” Polin 18 (2006), 3–24; Murray Jay Rosman, “The History Of Jewish Women in Early Modern Poland: An Assessment,” Polin 18 (2006), 25–56.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

8

Introduction

14 Sabina Levine, Prakim Bah.inukh Hayehudi Bepolin Bame’ah Hatsha-esreh Vereshit Hame’ah Haesrim (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1997). 15 Levine, Prakim Bah.inukh Hayehudi, 82–83; Eliyana Adler, In Her Hands: The Education of Jewish Girls in Tsarist Russia (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 2010); for the changes in women’s lives in Imperial Russia see: ChaeRan Freeze, Jewish Marriage and Divorce in Imperial Russia (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 2002). 16 In Poland the first secular Jewish elementary schools were established in 1820. The girls’ school in Warsaw was praised by the Polish administration for its accomplishments, which it attributed to the absence of Jewish-rabbinic supervision. See: Levine, Prakim Bah.inukh Hayehudi Bepolin, 37–40. These schools taught Polish, a little history and geography, but much less compared to secular boys’ schools (ibid., 58). 17 Rachel Manekin, “‘Mashehu H . adash Legamrei’ – Hitpath.uto shel Ra’ayon Hah.inukh Hadati Lebanot Ba’et Hah.adashah,” Masekhet 2 (2004), 64. 18 Decisors are respected rabbis who have reached a position of leadership high enough to adjudicate matters of Jewish law without precedent or contrary to an existing one. A decisor can make decisions about public policy. 19 Responsa literature (sing. responsum) is a rabbinic genre called She’elot Utshuvut (literally question and answers). These were letters send by Jews to rabbis asking for legal adjudication in a specific situation. 20 H . aym Soloveitchik, Shu”t Khemakor Histori (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1990). 21 Judah Slotsky, Ha’itonut Hayehudit-Rusit Bame’ah Hatsha-esreh (Jerusalem: Bialik Press, 1971) and Ha’itonut Hayehudit-Rusit Bame’ah Haesrim (1900–1918) (Tel Aviv: The Foundation for the Research of the History of the Jews, 1978). 22 Eliav Taub, “The Opening of the Haredi Educational System to the Secular and its Transformation from a Peripheral Factor to a Central Factor in Israeli Society,” Jewish Political Studies Review 2 (2009), 109–31; Varda Shiffer, Ma’arekhet Hah.inukh Hah.aredi Beyisrael: Tikz.uv, Pikuah. Ubakarah (Jerusalem: Floersheimer Studies Center, 1998); Udi Spiegel, Vetalmud Torah Neged Kulam: H . inukh H . aredi Lebanim Beyerushalyim (Jerusalem: Floersheimer Studies Center, 2011).

1

Women’s Torah studies

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The halachic infrastucture

In Isaac Bashevis Singer’s short story “Yentl the Yeshiva Boy,” a gifted young woman desperately wants to study Torah. “Her head was full of Talmudic disputation, questions and answers, learned phrases. Secretly, she had smoked her father’s long pipe.”1 Traditional Jewish society, however, condemns such ideas: centuries of rabbinic decision making has dictated that women are to be forbidden the study of Torah. The hunger for Torah, like pipe smoking in public, is for men alone: Yentl knew she was not cut out for a woman’s life. She couldn’t sew, couldn’t knit. She let the food burn and the milk boil over; her Sabbath pudding never turned out right, and her challah dough didn’t rise.2 Yentl, however, is desperate to study the writings so revered by her people. Following her father’s death, she cuts her hair, dons her father’s clothes, and assumes the identity of a man. In the original story, Yentl disappears and is never heard from again: there is now no place for her in traditional Jewish society. In the stage play later turned into a Broadway musical and film, Yentl emigrates to America because she cannot integrate into traditional Jewish society as a woman who wants to go beyond traditional gender roles. Across the centuries of Jewish history, there have been exceptional women, with one notable exception members of rabbinical families, whose love of Torah study was not unrequited. One of these archetypal women scholars is Bruriah, one of several women quoted in the Talmud. The wife of the Tanna Rabbi Meir and the daughter of Rabbi H . anina ben-Tradyon, Bruriah was intensely involved in halachic discussions and challenged many sages. Though the Talmud describes her as very knowledgeable, the story of her death stands in bitter contrast. The Talmud relates that in the middle of his life,3 Rabbi Meir fled to Babylonia, one of the reasons being the otherwise unexplained “Bruriah incident.” Rashi, however, explains that Bruriah ridiculed the talmudic assertion that women are “light-minded.” Upon hearing this, Rabbi Meir sends a student to seduce her to prove that she was wrong. Bruriah eventually accedes to the student’s entreaties of adultery. Overwhelmed with shame, she

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

10

The halachic infrastructure

commits suicide, conveniently providing later generations with a powerful negative example of the folly of teaching Torah to women. There are, of course, many problematic aspects to this account, both halachic and moral, which lead other commentators to offer the more likely explanation that Rabbi Me’ir’s speedy exit was caused by the anti-Roman activities of Bruriah’s family.4 There are other tales of exceptional women who rose to be recognized for their intellectual abilities and study of Torah. The first prominent female figure in the h.asidic movement was Udel, the daughter of the Besht, the founder of H . asidism. Her father interpreted her name as an acronym: “esh dat lamo” (“a fiery law unto them” – Deut. 33:2). A similar status was enjoyed by Feiga, Udel’s daughter and the mother of Nah.man of Bratslav, who profoundly influenced her son. The Belz h.asidic court produced several learned women who wore the fringed talit katan: Malkale, the wife of Rebbe Aaron Roke’ah, and her daughter Adel. In the early years of H . asidism there emerged figures such as Yente the Prophetess, the wife of one of the Ba’al Shem Tov’s h.asidim, and Perele, the daughter of the Maggid of Kozhnitz (Kozienice), who received h.asidim and wore a talit.5 A prominent female figure from the first generation of H . asidism was H . ana Rah.el Verbermakher, the Maiden of Ludmir, who was born in 1806 or 1815 in Ludmir (Volodymyr-Volynskyi), Volhynia, in northwestern Ukraine. Notably not a member of a rabbinic family, she studied different areas of the Torah, prayed while wearing a talit, donned tefillin, and recited the Kaddish for her father. She even broke her betrothal so she could continue her h.asidic leadership. Her father built her a synagogue and a house where she received h.asidim and gave h.asidic discourses from behind a curtain so the Hasidim could not see her. She eventually married twice but divorced both husbands. She immigrated to Jerusalem, where she continued to receive h.asidim, and it is even rumored that she engaged in kabbalistic attempts to hasten the eschaton. She died childless in Jerusalem, where she had lived off charity.6 Many times the story of Bruriah and her failure lurk barely visible beneath the surface of such stories. Ada Rapoport-Albert maintains that the story of H . ana Rah.el is indeed one of failure, since she is presented as a woman who, like Yentl, gives up her femininity for the sake of illegitimate spirituality. Hers is the story of a “false male,” and thus of failure.7 Tales praising the abilities of such women in such glowing superlatives, however, reinforce the traditional prohibition as much as the tragic tale of Bruriah. These remarkable women rose solely as individuals to a position from which women as a class were excluded. In Singer’s fictional world, there are, of course, no exceptions. In real life, a woman with a strong desire to study Torah such as Bruriah or H . ana Rah.el might be allowed to do so – as an individual exception. Under what conditions a woman might study Torah and ultimately, whether women as a class may be permitted to do so, were questions that generated considerable halachic discussion in the modern era.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The halachic infrastructure

11

The modern challenges of secularism and assimilation forced a reinterpretation of halachic texts. Rabbis had to face a new world where secularism was not only a viable option but the preferred one. Traditional gender roles now became a mere option and religious society had to formulate a strategy: how to build a Jewish female identity that would not be overcome by the perils of the modern age. The answer that almost all the rabbis gave was reforming women’s education. Yentl’s story marks the beginning of a change in Jewish society in the modern period. The centrality of Torah study in the Jewish traditions makes it vital for positions of leadership. Faced with canonical prohibition and growing demands to allow the study of Torah for women, rabbis had to search for a creative solution in canonical texts that seem at first both sparse and unyielding. A reinterpretation of rabbinic literature was called for, a reinterpretation that would include women in one way or another in the commandment to study Torah.

The tannaitic and amoraic material In all its primary texts, halachic literature admonishes a father to educate his children, seeing in verses such as “make them known to children and your children’s children,” (Deut. 4:9) “and you shall teach your sons to speak of them … ” (Deut. 11:19), a biblical command for a father to teach his son Torah.8 This duty was later interpreted as also pertaining to any student capable of learning: Just as a person is obligated to teach his son, so, too, is he obligated to teach his grandson, as [Deut. 4:9] is commanded: “And you shall teach them to your sons and your grandsons.” [Furthermore, this charge is not confined] to one’s children and grandchildren alone. Rather, it is a mitzvah for each and every wise man to teach all students, even though they are not his children, as [Deut. 6:7] states, “And you shall teach them to your sons … ” The oral tradition explains: “Your sons,” these are your students, for students are also called sons, as [2 Kgs 2:3] states, “And the sons of the prophets went forth.” If so, why do the commandments [explicitly mention] one’s son and grandson? To grant precedence to one’s son over one’s grandson, and one’s grandson over the son of a colleague.9 Yet what about daughters like Yentl? In the canon of rabbinic literature women are not at the center of religious life, but are limited to traditional roles in the home10: the sewing, knitting, and challah baking of Singer’s story. Women are exempt from many commandments that are miz.vot “ase shehazman grama” (positive time-bound commandments), that is, commandments that require certain actions at specific times. Yet women are also exempt from other commandments that are not time-bound, including the commandment to study Torah.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

12

The halachic infrastructure

According to Tal Ilan, there are examples of women who could read the Torah or write their own divorce papers.11 The canonical sources, however, are quite clear: women as a class do not partake in the study of canonical texts. While there are many examples in rabbinic literature throughout the ages of learned women praised for their cognitive skills, they are individual exceptions to the general prohibition.12 Yentl can be an exception if she is lucky and might be even revered as a holy woman, but by doing so she assumes the role of a man. In tannaitic literature, the discussion on women’s Torah study has two aspects: an exemption and a prohibition. The exemption appears in several sources: … and you shall teach them to your children (Deut. 11:18–21) [The Hebrew can be understood as children in general or as masculine. Therefore the Midrash extrapolates] your sons and not your daughters, the words of R. Jose b. Akiba. On this basis, sages have said, “When an infant begins to talk, his father should talk to him in the holy tongue and teach him Torah, and if he will not speak to him in the holy tongue and will not teach him Torah, it is the same as if he would bury him.” For it is said: and you shall teach your children, talking to them (11:19) if you teach them to your children, your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children (11:21) if not your days may be shortened. For thus are words of Torah to be expounded: the positive implies the negative, and the negative implies the positive.13 A parallel to this Midrash in the Talmud expounds on the reason for the exemption: … And ye shall teach them to your sons. And if his father did not teach him, he must teach himself, for it is written, and you shall study. How do we know that she [i.e., a mother] has no duty [i.e., to teach her children]? – Because it is written, and you shall teach [can also be read, “and you shall study”]. Whoever is commanded to study, is commanded to teach; whoever is not commanded to study, is not commanded to teach. And how do we know that she is not bound to teach herself ? – Because it is written, and you shall teach and you shall learn [the exegesis presented above] the one whom others are commanded to teach is commanded to teach oneself; and the one whom others are not commanded to teach, is not commanded to teach oneself. How then do we know that others are not commanded to teach her? – Because it is written: “And ye shall teach them to your sons” – but not your daughters.14 The Talmud explains elsewhere that the exemption is a result of women’s exemption from time-bound commandments, and if a woman does not

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The halachic infrastructure

13

need to perform the commandment, there is no reason for her to learn about it.15 The prohibition on women’s Torah study arises tangentially in a disagreement between two Tannaim in tractate Sotah. The Sotah is a woman whose husband has instructed her not to be alone with a certain man (Num. 5:11–31). If the woman does not abide by his instruction and is alone with him long enough to raise the suspicion of a sexual act, she is forbidden to have sexual relations with her husband, and some of her monetary rights are suspended even though there are no witnesses to fornication. Intercourse remains forbidden until she goes to the temple to offer a sacrifice and drink the “bitter water” that serves as a test for purity.16 The Mishnah brings a disagreement between Rabbi Eli’ezer and Ben Azai about the ability of the Torah’s merit to suspend the effects of the bitter water. They also disagree on whether a father may teach his daughter Torah: She will not be done drinking until her face turns yellow and her eyes protrude and her veins become swollen, and they say “Take her out,” “Take her out,” so the Azara [the court of the temple] does not become impure. If she has a merit, it will suspend [the effects of the water]. There is a merit that suspends one year, there is a merit that suspends two years, and there is a merit that suspends three years. From here Ben Azai says, a man is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, for if she drinks, she will know that the merit suspends [her punishment]. Rabbi Eli’ezer says, everyone that teaches his daughter Torah, teaches her tiflut. Rabbi Joshua says, a woman wants a qav [small amount of food] and tiflut rather than nine qabim and abstinence.17 This text from the Mishnah stands at the center of the legal discussion about women’s Torah study: a zekhut (merit) can suspend punishment for the Sotah. The ordeal in the temple, and thus the text commenting upon it, takes place in a context of sexual promiscuity and adultery, so too, the wry comment of R. Joshua about happy wives at home. Already the medieval interpreters of the Mishnah grappled with the concept of tiflut and how it impacts women’s study. Strictly speaking, the prohibition deals only with gender, not sexuality, but sexuality, adultery, and promiscuity are part of the canonical text and thus must not only have meaning but be universally true. This is the textual “hook” that grabs later interpreters, a hermeneutical space into which they may pour contemporary notions about women’s sexual nature and intellectual abilities. The study of Torah develops the skill of “cunningness,” which women will most certainly misuse. The discussion thus stops being local and takes on a universal element of women’s innate characteristics. The image of woman projecting from rabbinical texts may be a Lilith, a temptress who will use the wisdom gleaned from holy books to beguile and seduce, or an Eve, innocent and naïve, who must be shielded from mental tasks beyond her natural capacities.

14

The halachic infrastructure

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The medieval interpretation of the Mishnah Rabbi Obadiah of Bertinoro ad loc. interprets the merit suspending the punishment as the woman sending her children to school and awaiting her husband who left the home to study Torah. This is also the opinion of Rabbi Israel Lipschutz, the author of Tiferet Yisrael.18 He suggests that a woman who knows that she was alone with a man against the specific warning of her husband may not be punished immediately because of the good deeds she did during her life, e.g. sending her children to school to study Torah. This might lead her to think that the biblical verses referring to punishment are not true since she is not punished immediately. She is unaware that the merit of her good deeds merely postpones the punishment. Therefore, a woman should study Torah so she would know that her merit postpones the punishment and the biblical verses are true.19 Interpreters also discuss the claim of Rabbi Eli’ezer that the study of Torah by women is tiflut and offer several interpretation for the term: R. Obadiah of Bertinoro ad loc. listens for its sexual connotations: “from the Torah she understands cunningness and does what she desires in a clandestine manner.” Rabbi Yom-Tov Lippman Heller in his commentary Tosfot Yom-Tov adds that this interpretation is different from that of Maimonides, who interpreted the term as “words of folly.”20 The Tiferet Yisrael offers two possibilities: “promiscuity or something without salt (the literal meaning of tafel is something that lacks taste) because she does not have the ability to understand the reasoning of the Torah and she will ridicule it [because of her lack of understanding].”21 R. Heller mentions that while cunningness is also part of Ben Azai’s opinion, he does not give it a negative connotation.22 This dichotomy of cunningness and adultery versus intellectual simplicity and innocence reverberates throughout the following generations. Another text from the Mishnah in tractate Nedarim that seems relevant to the debate deals with a person who vows that another person will not derive any benefit from him or his belongings. The Mishnah lists several actions that can be performed by the person who took the vow and would not constitute a violation: “He may set aside his terumah and his tithes with his permission. He may offer the bird-offerings of zavim and zavot and the bird-offering offered after childbirth, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. He may teach him Midrash [safra and sifri] halachot and aggadot but not Scripture. But he may teach Scripture to his sons and daughters.”23 While this source appears to allow women to study the Written Torah, many interpreters have been alert to the contradiction between these early texts. The common explanation is scribal error, since all manuscripts of the Mishnah Nedarim deal only with boys’ education. The word “daughters” at the end of the Mishnah seems to have been included by mistake. Tannaitic sources portray a basic disagreement concerning women’s Torah study.24 Interpreters understood the Mishnah in light of the talmudic debate and later interpreters, but looking at the Mishnah free of its reception history

The halachic infrastructure

15

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

shows that Ben Azai supported women’s Torah study because of one of three possible reasons: (1) a woman should learn so she will not be affected by the bitter water. (2) A woman should learn so she should know that if she indeed transgressed her husband’s wish but still was not influenced by the bitter water that this is a result of her previous good deeds, and it does not mean that the biblical verses are not true. (3) A woman should learn because studying will prevent her from sinning and ending up in a situation that necessitates offering the Sotah sacrifice.

The talmudic debate and the medieval interpretations The Talmud points out that it is not proper to say that teaching a woman Torah is tantamount to teaching her tiflut, rather it should be stated that it is similar to teaching tiflut. The Talmud also explains the results of Torah study as it relates to the personality of the learner and that it has a different result based on gender:25 Can you perceive saying [that teaching Torah is actually teaching her] tiflut?! – you should say, rather: as though26 he had taught her tiflut. R. Abbahu said: What is R. Eli’ezer’s reason? – Because it is written: “I, wisdom, have made subtlety my dwelling,” i.e., when wisdom enters a man subtlety enters with it. And what do the Rabbis make of the words “I, wisdom”? – They require them in accordance with the teaching of R. Yose son of R. H . anina; for R. Yose son of R. H . anina said: Words of Torah only remain with him who renders himself naked on their behalf; as it is said: “I wisdom have made nakedness my dwelling.” R. Johanan said: Words of Torah only remain with him who makes himself like one who is as nothing, as it is said: Wisdom shall be found from nothing.27 The Talmud focuses on the definition of the term tiflut and its connection to “cunningness.” Disagreement about this issue led the interpreters of the Mishnah to say that Ben Azai does not discount the cunningness associated with women’s study, but they assert that he does not see it as a negative phenomenon. Rashi ad loc. points out that cunningness is the ability to conceal “forbidden actions,” later understood as sexual promiscuity. The sexual aspect is a result of the larger context of tractate Sotah that deals with sexual promiscuity and suspicions among spouses. Wisdom and cunningness are discussed in the context of family and relationship. Rabbi Menah.em Me’iri, a talmudic interpreter from thirteenth century Provence, sees tiflut as “a situation where she perceives a little bit of the potential depth of the learning material. But she thinks she understands its role and goes around trying to show her wisdom to everyone.”28 Avraham Grossman sees this as an expression of R. Me’iri’s deep assumption that women are intellectually inferior.29 Others disagree, arguing that R. Me’iri

16

The halachic infrastructure

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

was referring to ancient times when women were not introduced to the rules of religion. Historical development has changed this reality and women are a part of the religious community and should be educated in its rules. Therefore, R. Me’iri did not see Rabbi Eli’ezer’s opinion as relevant to contemporary women.30 At this point the Yerushalmi adds to the discussion a rather extreme parable by Rabbi Eli’ezer: A Roman matron asked R. Lazar how is it that though only one sin was committed in connection with the golden calf those who died die in three kinds of execution? He told her a woman has no wisdom except at the distaff, for it is written “and all the women that were wise-hearted did spin with their hands (Exod. 35:25).” Said to Hyrcanus, his son, so as not to answer her with a single teaching from the Torah you have made me lose 300 kor of tithe every year?! He told him let the words of the Torah be burnt and not given to women.31 There are those who see a difference, however, between the Babylonian Talmud and the Yerushalmi concerning women’s Torah study. According to the Tosefta32 and the Yerushalmi,33 impure women (zavot) as well as impure men (zavin) can read the Torah, but this is not mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud.34 Some suggest that the Yerushalmi is more sympathetic to women’s study of Torah and have given several reasons,35 but I am not convinced this statement has such broad meaning. In tractate H . agiga Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah discussed the issue: Our Rabbis taught: Once Rabbi Johanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Eleazar H . isma went to greet Rabbi Joshua at Peki’in. Said he to them: What new teaching was there at the study hall today? They replied: We are your disciples and we drink from your waters. Said he to them: Even so, it is impossible for a study session to pass without some novel teaching. Whose Sabbath was it? – It was the Sabbath of R. Eleazar ben Azariah,—And what was the theme of his Hagada discourse today? They answered: The section Hakhel (lit. assemble).36 And what exposition did he give thereon? “Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones.” If the men came to learn, then the women came to hear, but wherefore have the little ones to come? In order to grant reward to those who bring them. Said he to them: There was a fair jewel in your hand, and you sought to deprive me of it.37 This is the only talmudic source that differentiates between men and women in relation to the Written or Oral Torah. The medieval Tosafists38 noticed the difference between Ben Azai and R. Eleazar ben Azariah. They understood the latter to promote women’s study to have knowledge that enables

The halachic infrastructure

17

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

them to perform the commandments, not for them to know that the merit of good deeds suspends punishment.39 In other words, hearing does not carry the same value as studying Torah. Another point derived from this source is that the R. Joshua who agrees with R. Eleazar ben Azariah is the same R. Joshua mentioned in the Mishnah Sotah who asserts that a woman should not be abstinent and study Torah. As these two texts are consistent, his opinion seems to be that a woman should know the bare minimum required to function in her traditional roles, yet no more than that.40

Professor Weiss Halivni’s approach The interpretations of medieval commentators are thus constant with an independent look at the tanaitic material. Based on philological findings, a different suggestion was made by the scholar David Weiss Halivni. First, concerning the Mishnah in Sotah, one can read the distinction of the Yerushalmi between the opinions of R. Eleazar ben Azariah and Ben Azai into the Mishnah to show that Ben Azai thought women should study the entire Torah. Weiss Halivni sees support for this interpretation in the talmudic text in H . agiga with its distinction between men studying and women hearing. The ceremony of Hakhel includes reading several chapters from the Torah, but not the one dealing with the Sotah ordeal. Since one of the versions of the account in the Yerushalmi clearly states that this explanation, according to R. Eleazar ben Azariah, is different than that of Ben Azai, Weiss Halivni concludes that Ben Azai allowed women to study the entire Torah.41 Weiss Halivni also notes that the ordeal of the bitter water was abolished by Rabbi Johanan ben Zakai, who preceded Ben Azai by two generations; thus Ben Azai’s conclusion was apparently valid even when the Temple ceremony no longer took place.42 It is questionable, however, whether the textual evidence allows such a conclusive reading. For Weiss Halivni, the discussion of women’s exemption from Torah study in TB Kidushin is composed of several layers. The Stama interprets the verse “and you teach your sons” to deny women Torah study and Rabbi Yehuda uses the same verse to negate a duty to teach grandchildren.43 Weiss Halivni sees the sermon of Rabbi Jose Ben Akiba in the Sifre that negates women’s Torah study as a singular opinion. Since the opinion is introduced as “the words of Rabbi Jose Ben Akiba,” Weiss Halivni believes “the words” suggest that the majority of the sages interpreted the verse differently. If the exemption of women were universal, the Talmud would have also asked “and from where do they [other rabbis who interpret the verse relating to other issues] learn women’s exemption?” Different exegetical uses of the same verse are not mutually exclusive, of course, and an argument from silence – that the Talmud does not pose the question Weiss Halivni suggests – is always problematic.44

18

The halachic infrastructure

The adjudication of the Rishonim (twelfth–fourteenth centuries)

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

In light of the previous sources, Maimonides adjudicated the matter in his magnum opus, Mishne Torah. His ruling became the cornerstone for future discussion of the issue. He does not allow women to study Torah but distinguishes between the severities of learning the Oral Torah versus the Written Torah: A woman who studies Torah will receive a reward. However, that reward will not be as a man’s, since she was not commanded. Whoever performs a deed which he is not commanded to do does not receive as great a reward as one who performs a miz.vah that he is commanded to do. Even though she will receive a reward, the Sages commanded that a person should not teach his daughter Torah, because most women do not have the skills to study, and thus transform the words of Torah into words of folly because of their lack of understanding. Our Sages declared: “Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is like one who teaches her tiflut.” This applies to the Oral Law. But the Written Law at the outset, one should not teach one’s daughter. However, if one teaches her, it is not considered as if she were taught idle things.45 Maimonides places the term tiflut into a purely intellectual category: “words of folly,”46 i.e., a preposterous or untenable interpretation. Some commentators on Maimonides understand the reward a woman receives for studying Torah as emphasizing that even though a person is not allowed to teach Torah, this does not mean that the woman learning lacks reward.47 Judah Levi holds that a close reading of Maimonides’ phrasing suggests that the words “sages declared” mean that this is not a binding legal rule, but merely good advice, and he adduces a long list of examples.48 Whatever the case, while the ultimate halachic adjudication does not follow Ben Azai, it does not accord purely with Eli’ezer either.49 Thus it is no surprise when the issue of women’s Torah study is not mentioned in the writings of other early decisors like Rabbi Isaac Alfasi (usually referred to by the acronym RI”F), Rabbenu Asher (usually referred to by the acronym RoSH, lit. “head”) and Rabbi Mordecai ben Hillel:50 they do not mention good advice from the sages, only halachic matters. It is possible that this approach influenced Rabbi Yehuda Assad, one of the leading rabbis of Hungary, who mentions in a few lines in the middle of a completely different discussion that the words of R. Eli’ezer do not prohibit teaching women Torah.51 Ze’ev Harvey suggests that Maimonides did obligate women to study, not, however, as part of the commandment to study Torah, but rather the commandment of faith.52 Some interpreters assert that Maimonides adjudicates in accordance with R. Eli’ezer. Rabbi Akiva Eyger ad loc. also adds that Maimonides adopts the opinion of Rabbi Joshua. Others see Maimonides in accordance with R. Eleazar ben Azariah since their positions offer a source for differentiating between Written and Oral Torah.53

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The halachic infrastructure

19

Maimonides says that ab initio, a man should not teach his daughter Torah, but retroactively a woman is rewarded for learning Written Torah, though less than one commanded to do so. According to Rabbi David Halevi in his commentary on the Shulh.an Arukh, Turey Zahav (usually referred to as the Taz), Maimonides allows women to study the most simplistic level of the Written Torah. Rabbi Joel Sirkis in his commentary on the Tur, Bayit H . adash (known as the Bah.), disagrees and interprets Maimonides as referring to random learning.54 Later interpreters confronting this issue of women’s Torah study in their communities strive to explain Maimonides’ differentiation between Written and Oral Torah, often revealing how they believe knowledge itself is transmitted and received. The world of Jewish text moved over time from its biblical center. There are many instances in the Halacha of legal writing heavily based on the biblical text. The different texts of Midrash, even in the Dead Sea Scrolls, are texts that heavily rely on biblical verses. However, the world of the Amoraim changed the focus of rabbinic literature and the biblical text became less central. An unequivocal expression of this approach comes from the medieval Rabbi Rabbeinu Tam: … And Rabbeinu Tam interpreted that we rely on what is said in tractate Sanhedrin (24a) Babel [referring to Babylon where the Talmud was created, similar to the Hebrew word for “mixture”] is mixed of Torah, Mishnah, and Talmud and the Talmud of Babylonia has them all.55 At a very early stage the Written Torah became less “legal” and more a source of homily. Thus knowledge of the Written Torah is not a skill that translates into a position that can influence Halacha. A man or woman knowledgeable in Scripture cannot rise to a position of power granted only to those who deal with the Oral Torah. The gap between the Written and Oral Torah runs through the tradition, for example in the ruling of R. Sirkis that sees the source for Maimonides’ ruling in R. Eleazar ben Azariah’s allegory of the Hakhel and the different roles men and woman played in that ceremony. Some of Maimonides’ interpreters emphasize the different character of the Written versus Oral Torah. Rabbi Yehudah Ayash writes: And this is only relevant to the Oral Torah, which has a close reading of the Torah and the close reading of the rabbis, but not the Written Torah, which is reading the verses and punctuation and cantillation without any understanding, and there is no fear that they will turn the words of the Torah to words of folly.56 Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s distinction that a man studies and a woman hears the words, i.e., a woman understands on a basic level rather than through deep analysis, erects a boundary that remains from the dedication of the Rishonim

20

The halachic infrastructure

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

to the twentieth century. Women are granted only minimal access to the text, confined to surface readings that do not give them the critical mass of knowledge needed to have a voice in halachic discourse. This is the most likely reason for Maimonides’ differentiation between Written and Oral Torah.57 In his book on tractate Kidushin, Rabbi Yeshaya ben-Elya DeTarny ruled that a man is not obligated to teach his daughter Torah. If he wishes, however, he can teach her according to the guidelines of tractate Sotah.58 In his remarks on the third chapter of Sotah, he writes: Even though a woman is not commanded by Talmud Torah as is said, you will teach them your sons and not your daughters, if he wants to teach her he has permission to do so. As I explained in my Composition on Proofs in proof B, at times when they used to give the bitter water to the Sotot [plural of Sotah], a man had to teach his daughter Torah so if she drank and was spared, she would know that her merits suspended [the punishment] for her.59 The editor of the critical edition offers two hypotheses why R. DeTarny does not differentiate between Written and Oral Torah. The first is that he adopted Maimonides’ position completely.60 The second is that he was referring to a simple study of the ruling, not to anything in-depth. The answer, of course, lies in the Kunteres Hara’ayot (Composition on Proofs) written by R. DeTarny, but that work has been lost. While both options are possible, there is also a third. R. DeTarny may have ruled as Ben Azai and thus believes that in the past, when the biblical ritual of Sotah took place, a man had to teach his daughter Torah. This could also suggest that in our day when the ceremony does not take place, a man should not teach his daughters at all. Without the lost Composition on Proofs no definitive answer is possible.61 Other texts of the Rishonim era proscribe clear boundaries to women’s access to the Torah. Sefer H . asidim holds that women should be taught the necessary halachic rulings needed for their conduct in contemporary Jewish life and the prohibition of studying Torah refers to “the depths of the Talmud, reasons for the commandments, and the secrets of the Torah.”62 Rabbi Jacob b. Moses Moellin (known by the acronym Maharil) also acknowledges the need to give women practical knowledge, but mandates that the learning be done via “tradition,” meaning women should learn from their mothers: When they have a question, they will ask a rabbi, as we see in our generation that women are very knowledgeable in the laws of salting, washing [meat], nikur, laws of family purity etc. And all was according to receiving from others … Their fathers taught them [the daughters] since

The halachic infrastructure

21

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

they [the parents] were very knowledgeable and great in Torah and so were the women.63 Elsewhere, however, he differentiates between women who study with others and those who teach themselves. When asked why women recite the benediction over the Torah though forbidden to study it, he explains that there is a difference between Written Torah and Oral Torah and between a woman who learns from others and a woman who studied independently.64 Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy in his book Sefer Miz.vot Gadol (known as the SMa”G) adjudicated as Maimonides and differentiated between Written and Oral Torah.65

The adjudication of the Halacha in the primary legal codes Maimonides’ ruling was adopted by other decisors, sometimes with variations. For example, in the Tur: Maimonides wrote that a woman who learns Torah is rewarded, not as a man because she is not commanded and does. And everyone that does something which he is not commanded to do is not rewarded as someone who was commanded. And even though she is rewarded, the sages decreed that a man shall not teach his daughter Torah because most women do not have the intellectual skills to study and they will transform the words of the Torah to words of folly. What does this refer to? The Written Torah, but the Oral Torah he will not teach her from the onset but if he did teach her, it is not like teaching her folly.66 Here, the roles of Written and Oral Torah are oddly reversed. In his commentary Beit-Yosef, R. Joseph Caro suspects a scribal error and advises that the text be amended accordingly, a correction warranted by collating this version with the early printing of the Tur.67 One of the interpreters of the Tur, Rabbi Joshua Falk, understands this ruling as forbidding women to be taught Torah, but not forbidding women to study independently.68 He explains the apparent contradiction between Maimonides and the Tur either as a printing mistake or a warning that there is more danger of turning the words of the Written Torah to words a folly.69 Concerning the Written Torah, R. Sirkis comments in the Bah. ad loc. that women come to hear the Torah read in the Hakhel ceremony, since they are not forbidden to study the Written Torah and in fact this is how they learn about the commandments relevant to their lives. He deduces that superficial study of the Written Torah, which is not systematic, is not forbidden. In his Shulh.an Arukh, R. Caro adopts the position of Maimonides and rules: A woman who studies Torah has a reward, but not like the reward of a man, because she is not commanded and does. And even though she has

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

22

The halachic infrastructure a reward, our sages decreed that a man should not teach his daughter Torah, because most women’s minds are not geared toward study, and they turn the words of the Torah to words of folly because of their lesser skills. Said the sages: “a man, who teaches his daughter Torah it is like he taught her tiflut.” On what things is that said? about the Oral Torah; but Written Torah, you will not teach her from the onset and if you do teach her it is not like teaching her tiflut. [now citing the ReMA] At any rate, a woman needs to learn the rules that belong to women. A woman does not have to teach her son Torah but if she helps her son or husband to study Torah, she splits their reward with them.70

Rabbi Moshe Isserles (known as the ReMA) exemplifies the position of most Rishonim in Ashkenaz who supported giving women the basic minimum knowledge needed to conduct daily life within the social framework of medieval Jewish society.

Late medieval sources Though the medieval and early modern periods saw little discussion of women’s Torah study, in Italy there is much evidence of women who enjoyed some religious education. Elsewhere, I explained71 that this likely results from the abundance of evidence from the Jewish community in medieval Italy compared to other contemporary Jewish communities. The wealth of some Jewish families and the interaction of Italian Jews with the non-Jewish world produced a great deal of information about the life of Jewish women in the Renaissance. That does not mean, however, that women’s lives in general were dramatically different.72 Two texts from Renaissance and early modern Italy serve later generations as the source of legitimacy for women’s Torah study. The first is described in many modern sources as the first responsum permitting women to study Torah. It is cited in rabbinic literature as part of the book of responsa Ma’ayan Ganim, written by the Italian rabbi Samuel Archivolti.73 He was born c. 1530 in the city of Cesena and died in 1611.74 He published books at a young age, taking advantage of the developing printing industry in the early sixteenth century. In 1551 while living in Venice, he published Degel Ahavah (Flag of Love),75 and in 1553 Ma’ayan Ganim (Fountain of Gardens). After the papal decree against the printing of Jewish books in 1554, he was forced to look for other sources of income.76 He wrote extensively on many fields such as linguistics, Kabbalah, interpretations of the Written Torah, and Halacha. He was ordained by Rabbi Samuel Judah Kaz.enelboygen, one of the most influential rabbis in Italy of the period. In 1579 he was named rabbi of the Jewish community in Padova and became a well-known figure in Italian Jewry.77 Described as a strong leader, knowledgeable and well acquainted with Italian culture, he wrote poetry and was a leading authority for many

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The halachic infrastructure

23

communities all over Italy for halachic questions.78 Later rabbinic literature describes Ma’ayan Ganim as a compendium of responsa, but in fact it is a book written in Hebrew as a stylistic guide to proper letter writing, its target readership Jews sophisticated enough to correspond in Hebrew and wishing to follow the norms of Renaissance Italy. The book also targets women. It is divided to five parts, each one dealing with a different subject, and each part has five initial letters and five responses. The fifth and last part deals with letters exchanged between men and women. Letters 9 and 10 deal with the question of women in Torah study. A woman called Dina writes asking for advice concerning her wish to study Torah, but she is distressed by the position of the Mishnah in tractate Sotah. Both letters are written in an ornate style with almost every sentence composed of snippets from the Bible or sayings from the Talmud: in essence, a cento of canonical sources. The responding letter explains that the Mishnah only refers to women who are “lightheaded” and thus would turn the words of the Torah to words of folly. Mature women are allowed to study Torah: And there is a difficulty in understanding the saying of our rabbis of blessed memory that he who teaches his daughter Torah it is like teaching her folly … , for I have seen women but an answer I have not seen, perhaps it can be explained that the sages of blessed memory intended this only when the father teaches her when she is very young, but if her actions show she is pure … surely in this manner there is no fear.79 It is not clear if a real woman wrote the question or whether she is merely a literary device.80 This short letter was even introduced as one that uses many verses and parts of verses from the Bible not only for literary reasons, but also because it suggests that in biblical times, women took a bigger part in spiritual life.81 How did an obscure book printed in the early sixteenth century become current in twentieth century halachic literature? The handful of extant copies are out of reach for most decisors. Those who cite the book refer to secondary quotations by Rabbi Baruch Epstein in his commentary on the Pentateuch, Torah Tmima.82 This raises the intriguing question of how and where Epstein saw the book, especially since in other works he makes a clear attribution to Archivolti as author and notes that the book is actually a guide to the writing of letters. The answer to this puzzle was found by Mark Schapiro, who lists a series of instances where Epstein altered citations and neglected to mention sources. He also shows that Epstein did not have an original copy of Ma’ayan Ganim but saw an article published in the Hebrew newspaper Haz.fira on September 25, 1895, that cited the letter to Dina concerning women’s Torah study.83 Another decisor active in Renaissance Italy, Rabbi H . ayyim Joseph David Azulai, returns to the ruling of Maimonides. Known by his Hebrew acronym H . YDA, he spent many years in Italy and became one of its important

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

24

The halachic infrastructure

rabbis.84 The majority of his books were written there and became influential in halachic discourse.85 According to Meir Benayaho, his three books of responsa are a collection of questions that arose during his study rather than actual halachic dilemmas brought before him to adjudicate. Benayaho explains this not by a lack of questions but as a matter of policy: R. Azulai chose not to answer individual questions because the number of inquiries sent to him was simply too large.86 A responsum in R. Azulai’s book Tov Ayin attempts to reconstruct how Maimonides reached his conclusion. The phrasing of the question does not suggest a matter of practical adjudication, but a theoretical debate on Maimonides’ interpretation of the talmudic discussion.87 He writes that he has been asked this several times and now takes the opportunity to give a full answer. His basic question is which of the positions of the Tanaim Maimonides accepted. According to R. Joseph Caro in his commentary Kesef Mishne, it was R. Eli’ezer, but R. Azulai is unconvinced: after all, R. Eli’ezer was a student of the house of Shammai and their halachic opinions are not generally followed. Moreover, how can learned women in the Talmud be explained, such as Bruriah, the wife of R. Meir and the daughter of R. H . anina ben-Tradyon? The first conjecture is that women were taught originally, but after Bruriah proved unworthy the accepted position became that of R. Eli’ezer. R. Azulai rejects this, since one case is not proof for all women. It also does not explain the difference between Written and Oral Torah. R. Azulai then suggests a new interpretation of the Mishnah: Rabbi Joshua forbids women to study even the Written Torah and R. Eli’ezer only refers to the Oral Torah. Maimonides thus ruled ab initio according to R. Joshua and post factum like R. Eli’ezer. R. Azulai explains that Bruriah was initially taught because she displayed skills, and he also favors the position of R. Me’iri that the Mishnah refers not to all women but only those with bad character. Later generations recruit this text as proof for allowing women to be taught when their good intentions are evident. This, however, overstretches the text, since it is an interpretation of a local debate about Bruriah and the responsum as a whole deals with Maimonides’ reasons for adjudication. Once again a gap looms between women as individuals and women as a class. In this case the minority of women who have both exceptional skills and good character may be taught, but women in general are excluded from Torah study. Surmising that R. Azulai was referring to a minority among women is supported by other sources where he addressed this issue. In his book of responsa Yosef Ometz, he deals with the question of why women say benediction over Torah study every day. Since some rabbinic authorities, e.g., the Shulh.an Arukh, prohibit women from reciting the benediction over a commandment from which they are exempt, they should also prohibit women from saying this benediction. One explanation is that women have to say at

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The halachic infrastructure

25

least some of the daily prayers, and chapters from the Mishnah are included in the Morning Prayer. R. Azulai rejects this explanation, since these chapters were included in prayer so that men, who are obligated to study Torah daily, will fulfill the minimum requirement during the morning services. Another explanation has to do with the halachic knowledge relevant to women’s lives. R. Azulai states that women do need to learn these issues, in accordance with Rishonim like Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, etc. but he also quotes Rabbi Jacob b. Moses Moellin, who says women should learn by experience, meaning a daughter from her mother. Therefore, says R. Azulai, the Shulh.an Arukh ruled that women should say this benediction because it is an ancient custom that has spread to all Jewish communities.88 R. Azulai searches for more explanations, however, since the first one seems unsatisfactory. The rest of the responsum focuses on women’s obligation to learn in order to perform the commandments relevant to their lives. The study of the Oral Torah is forbidden, since it might lead to “cunningness,” but there is no such fear in the study of the Written Torah, or the study of the halachic knowledge needed by women. R. Azulai reiterates this point several times, but he also contends that some commentators exaggerate the level of obligation women have to study the commandments relevant to them. For example, R. Jacob Landau in his book Agur writes that women must learn; R. Joshua ben Alexander Hacohen Falk in his commentary on the Tur, the Drisha, characterizes it as a miz.vah, but R. Azulai points out that Rabbi Solomon Luria (known as Rashal or Maharshal) only writes that women have a connection to Torah study because of this need of practical knowledge.89 In his comments on tractate H . agiga he also understands the position of R. Eleazar ben Azariah as supporting that of R. Joshua.90 In conclusion R. Azulai denies women Torah study and does not support women studying more than the bare minimum.91 He does not deviate from the accepted path of earlier decisors. Rabbinical sources discussing women and Torah study are scarce and far between. They do not represent complicated legal debate: women, it seems, do not learn in the same way as men. This would be the end of things were it not for the changes modernity forced on traditional Jewish society. Jewish women entered the public arena in new ways and were introduced to secular knowledge. Changes in the role of women forced a reevaluation of these early primary texts. From a question hardly addressed in a canon of rabbinic literature, there are today hundreds of texts written on the issue, many of them portraying it as one of the primary problems facing Orthodoxy. The issue became relevant first and foremost in Eastern Europe, where the majority of Jews lived in the nineteenth century. Yentl became the center of attention. Whether she stayed within the traditional Jewish community or left it made her desire for Torah study all the more pressing. The ability to venture beyond traditional community boundaries mandated a reevaluation of women as a class rather than as exceptional individuals who became individual exceptions to the general prohibition.

26

The halachic infrastructure

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Notes 1 Isaac Bashevis Singer, The collected Stories of Isaac Bashevis Singer (New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux 1981), 150. 2 Bashevis Singer, The collected Stories, 149. There are many differences between the original short story and the play and subsequent film. 3 TB Avodah Zarah 18b. 4 Eitam Henkin, “Ta’alumat Ma’ase Debruriah,” Akadamot 21 (2008), 140–59. 5 For a list of female h.asidic figures who adopted “masculine” practices, see Shlomo Ashkenazi, Dor Dor Uminhagav: Orh.ot Zemanim Veiyunim Beyisrael (Tel Aviv: 1987), 242–52. 6 Nathaniel Deutsch, The Maiden of Ludmir: A Jewish Holy Woman and Her World. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003). 7 Rapoport-Albert, “On Women in Hasidism: S. A. Horodecky and the Maid of Ludmir Tradition,” in Jewish History; Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, Ada Rapoport-Albert, Steven J. Zipperstein, eds. (London: P. Halban, 1988), 529. 8 Maimonides, Sefer Hamiz.vot, Ase 11; Yereim (Shif edition) section 251; SeferMitz.ot Gadol, Ase 12; SeferMiz.vot Katan section 106; Sefer Hah.inukh, section 418. 9 Mishne Torah, Talmud Torah 1:2. For more on the obligation of a father to educate his children, see: Eliav Shochetman, Dinei H . inukh Al-Pi Hamishpat Ha’ivri (unpub. MA thesis, Hebrew University in Jerusalem: 1962); Shmuel Glick, Hah.inukh Bere’i Hah.ok Vehahalacha (Jerusalem: The Schechter Institute, 1999). 10 Shmu’el Safrai, “Meh.uyavutan shel Nashim Bemiz.vot Bemishnatam shel Hatana’im,” Sefer Hashanah shel Universitat Bar Ilan Madaei Hayahadut Umada’ei Haruah. 26–27 (1995), 233. A different explanation was given by Michael Stlaw, “Zakhar Unekeva Bera’am – Migdar Veyahadut H . azal,” Rez.ef Utmura – Yehudim Veyahadut Be’erez.-Yisrael Habizantit Noz.rit, Israel Levine ed. (Jerusalem: Yad Yiz.h.ak Ben-Z.vi, 2004), 486–506. 11 Tal Ilan, “Eshnav Lereshut Harabim – Nashim Yehudiyot Biymei Bayit Sheni,” Eshnav Leh.ayehen shel Nashim Beh.vrot Yehudiyot (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1995), 50–51. 12 Judith Hauptman, “A New View of Women and Torah Study in the Talmudic Period,” JSIJ 9 (2012), 249–92. 13 Sifre Dvarim, piska 46 (Finkelstein edition), 104. Finkelstein mentions differences in the manuscripts, sometimes attributing the midrash to Asi ben Aqiba or to Jose ben Akiba. Heiman writes that he was one of the last Tanaim and after the days of Ben Azai. See: Aharon Heiman, Toldot Tanaim Veamoraim, vol. 3 (London: 1910), 1207. 14 TB Kidushin 29b. 15 TB Kidushin 34a. The exemption of women from time-bound commandments is deduced from women’s exemption from the commandment of tfilin (phylacteries) and the latter is deduced from women’s exemption from Torah study. Since the goal of the tfilin is to insure the study of Torah, women are not commanded to wear them since they are not expected to study Torah. 16 Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Hatek.es Shelo Hayah: Mikdash, Midrash Umigdar Bemasekhet Sot.ah (Jerusalem: Magnes 2008). 17 Mishnah Sotah 3,4. 18 Tiferet Yisrael (Yakhin) 16. The source is in the opinion of Rabina in the Talmud: “Rabina said: It is certainly merit of Torah; you said that she is [in the category of] one who is not commanded and fulfills!? Women are not so commanded, still when they have their sons taught Scripture and Mishnah and wait for their husbands until they return from the Schools.” TB Sotah 21a. Rashi ad loc. s.v. Leolam zkhut: “and not that she studies Torah but that she toils with her son and husband that they will.”

The halachic infrastructure

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

19 20 21 22 23

24

25

26

27 28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

37 38

27

Tiferet Yisrael (Yakhin) 18. Ad loc. s.v. tiflut. Tiferet Yisrael (Yakhin) 19. Ad loc. s.v. Keilu limda tiflut. Mishnah Nedarin 4:3. However, in the De-Rosi and Kaufman manuscripts the reading is “to teach his son Torah.” This is also the version of Maimonides and the Rosh. Many Mishnah commentators agree that this is the right version since most manuscripts omit the word “daughters” and also because the inclusion of daughters contradicts the Mishnah in tractate Sotah, for example Rabbi Issac ben Aaron of Karlin in Keren Ora (Jerusalem: 1960), 18. David Weiss-Halivni speculates that since the version of the printing of the Mishnah in Venice is “sons and daughters,” it is safe to assume that the printer would not have added the word “and daughters” without manuscript support. Without extant sources to support this claim, I do not find it convincing: David Weiss-Halivni, “Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Mayim Medalav (1997), 19. Weiss-Halivni claimed that there were other sages who supported the position of Ben Azai in light of the comparison of tanaitic positions about the exemption from Torah study and from other commandments that were deduced from Torah study, but he can offer no proof to support his position. See: David WeissHalivni, Mekorot Umasorot – Shabat (Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982), 302; see especially note 2. Rabbi Obadiah of Bartenure added the word “like” to his version of the Mishnah and so did Rabbi Shlomo Adani in his interpretation Melekhet Shlomo and Rabbi Shlomo Shtrashon in his interpretation perush Harash”sh. In most of the manuscripts the word “like” does not appear. That is the case with the BudapestKaufman manuscript A50, Parma-Platina 3173 (De-Rosi 138) and in the Munich 95 manuscript. This word appears in the Mishnah. The word Keilu, which according to Ephraim Bezalel Halivni means “like or as though,” is used when the intention is to interpret or to offer an example. Ephraim Bezalel Halivni, Bein Haish Laisha: Havh.anot Bein Gvarim Lenashim Behalacha (Jerusalem: Shay Press, 2007), 19–21. TB Sotah 21b. Beit Habh.ira – Sotah (Mhadurat Sofer), 46. Avraham Grossman, “Haisha Bemishnato shel Menah.em Me’iri,” Z.ion 63 (2002), 253–91. Grossman understands that the Me’iri saw women as intellectually inferior but did not explain tiflut as sexual promiscuity because he did not want to offend them (290). Gedalya Oren, “Ah.vat Ba’alei Hadat Hagdurim Bedarkhei Hadatot – Nokhri, Ger Veisha Bmishnat Hame’iri,” Da’at 60 (2007), 38. Y. Sotah 3,4 16a. See also Safrai, “Meh.uyavutan shel Nashim Bemiz.vot Bemishnatam shel Hatana’im,” 27. Tosefta Berakhot 2:12 (Liberman), 8. Y. Berakhot 3, 4 26a. TB Berakhot 22a. Mikhael Hellinger, “Talmud Torah Leor Hamekorot” (unpub. MA thesis, Jerusalem: Bar Ilan University, 1994), 23–29. A ceremony conducted in Jerusalem during the holiday of Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles) that came after a year of Shvi’it (in which the biblical verses forbid working the land). The ceremony took place in the Temple and included the king reading several biblical passages. TB H . agiga 3a. The Tosafists were a group of rabbis who lived in France and Germany in the eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Their interpretations of the Talmud are printed in the margins of most editions..

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

28

The halachic infrastructure

39 Tosfot Sotah 21b, s.v. Ben Azai. 40 This is also the conclusion from a parallel text in the Yerushalmi that was discussed earlier, where R. Joshua praises Rabbi Eleazar and says the generation is not orphaned as long as it has Rabbi Eleazar. There is another parallel text in Y. H . agiga 1:1 and Weiss-Halivni sees there a clear reference that the position of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah is not like that of Ben Azai. He also believes this is a later version. Weiss-Halivni, “Talmud Torah lenashim,” 17; see especially footnote 6. 41 Weiss-Halivni, “Talmud Torah lenashim,” 17. 42 Weiss-Halivni, “Talmud Torah lenashim,” 18. 43 Weiss-Halivni, “Talmud Torah lenashim,” 22. 44 See also Nuh.i Fisher, “Hishtatfut Nashim Badiyun Hatalmudi,” Hagut 7 (2006), 101–26. Ephraim Bezalel Halivni also disagrees with these claims and does not identify tannaitic material that supports women’s Torah study. Ephraim Bezalel Halivni, Bein Haish Laisha: Havh.anot Bein Gvarim Lenahsim Behalacha, 16–18. 45 Mishne Torah, Talmud Torah 1:13. 46 Some commentators on Maimonides hold that Rashi and Maimonides were actually saying the same thing. See Leh.em Mishneh adloc.; Judah Atiya, Mesharet Moshe, (Ashdod, 1998) Talmud Torah 1:13, 46–47. Others differentiate between Rashi and Maimonides see: Judah Ayash, Leh.em Yehudah, (Jerusalem, 1986), Talmud Torah 13 s.v. Veza”l. 47 Ayash, Leh.em Yehudah, ibid., s.v. Katav. 48 Judah Levy, “Da’at Harambam al Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Hama’ayan 34 (1994), 10. 49 David Yiz.h.aki, “Be’inyan Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Or Leyisrael (1998), 203–5; Abraham Barukh Pevzner, “Be’inyan Limud Torah Shebe’al-pe Lenashim,” Karnot Tzadik, Mordekhai La’ufer ed. (New York: Kehot, 1982), 761–66; Efrayim Halivni, “Nashim Vetalmud Torah,” Hadarom 61 (1992), 25–34; Abraham Jacob Yuter, “Nashim Vetalmud Torah: Iyun Hilkhati Tah.biri,” Hadarom 61 (1992), 38–41. 50 R. Isaac Alfasi is an eleventh-century interpreter of the Talmud, the first to compile a comprehensive legal code according to the Talmud. R. Asher ben Jehiel was one of the leading rabbinic leaders in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century. He lived in Germany and Spain and wrote both commentaries on the Talmud and halachic rulings. 51 Judah Assad, Shut Mhry”a, (New York, 1965). Yore De’ah 48. 52 Warren Ze’ev Harvey, “The Obligation of Talmud on Women According to Maimonides,” Tradition 19:2 (1981), 124. 53 Ayash, Leh.em Yehudah; Talmud Torah 13. 54 Taz, Yoreh De’ah 246:4; Bah. Yoreh De’ah 246, s.v. Katav. 55 Tosfot Kidushin 30a, s.v. La z.rikha. 56 Ayash, Leh.em Yehudah, Talmud Torah s.v. Uma sheh.ilek. For a similar conclusion, see: Atiyah, Mesharet Moshe; Yirmiyahu Lev, Divrey Yirmiyahu (Jerusalem: 1974), Talmud Torah 1:13 s.v. Isha Shlamda. 57 Some who cite the Mishnah in tractate Nedarim as source: such is the opinion of the Rabbi Eliyaho of Vilna in his interpretation of the Shulh.an Arukh 246:6. See also, Alexander Sender Kaplan, Shalmei Nedarim (Bnei Brak: 2007), 31. 58 Piskey Hariaz (Yad Harav Hertzog Edition), Kidushin 1 7:6. 59 Piskey Hariaz (Yad Harav Hertzog Edition), Sotah 1 2:2. 60 Israel Ta-Shma, “Toldot Hitkabluto shel Sefer Mishne Torah Beitalyah,” Keneset Meh.karim: Iyunim Basifrut Harabanit Beymei Habynayim, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Mosad Biyalik, 2004), 299–308. The Mishne Torah became popular in the days of R. DeTarny (304). 61 For more on the historical context of Jewish education in medieval Europe: Ephraim Kanarfogel, Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages

The halachic infrastructure

62

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

63 64 65

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

76 77 78 79 80 81

82

29

(Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1992); Moses Fisher, “H . inukh Habat Beashkenaz Bame’ot 12–14,” Mikhlol 7 (1994), 5–40. Sefer H . asidim (Margaliyot edition), 313. See also the Parma 3280 manuscript, section 835. Rabbi Eleazar of Mez. only mentions that women are exempt from Torah study. See: Yereim (shif edition) 254. For background to Sefer H . asidim see Kenneth Stow, Alienated Minority: the Jews of Medieval Latin Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 121–34. Shut Maharil, section 199. Shut Maharil Hah.adashot, section 45. SMG Ase 12, s.v. Amrinan. An interesting point was mentioned by Rabbi Z.adok Hacohen of Lublin who asked why in the SMaG and R. Moses Isserles ruled that women need to study the halachic ruling that applies to them. There seems to be no source for this in the Talmud. He then reasons that the opinion of Ben Azai actually refers to those laws that pertain to women’s daily lives. Therefore, the SMaG and others actually adjudicated the issue in accordance with Ben Azai. Oz.ar Hamelekh (Jerusalem: 2000), 63. Tur Yoreh De’a 246. Hellinger, “Talmud Torah Lenashim Leor Hamekorot,” 38. Prisha, Yoreh De’ah 246:15. Prisha, Yoreh De’ah 246:16. Rabbi H . ayyim Abulafyah tried to explain the contradiction, but his expression is not convincing: Mikraey Kodesh (Jerusalem: 2003), 276. Shulh.an Arukh Yoreh De’ah 246:6. Ilan Fuchs, “Talmud Torah Lenashim Beitalyah Biymei Habeynayim Ubereshit Ha’et Hah.adashah: Shlosha Diyunum Hilchatiyim,” Masekhet 8 (2009), 29–49. Joan Kelly, “Did Women Have a Renaissance?” Women History and Theory, Joan Kelly ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 19–50. Dror Schwarz., “Rabbi Shmuel Arkovolty: Toldotav Uktavav, She’elot Utshuvut Veigrot,” Asufut 7 (1993), 69. Schwarz., “Rabbi Shmuel Arkovolty: Toldotav Uktavav, She’elot Utshuvot Veigrot.” Schwarz., “Rabbi Shmuel Arkovolty: Toldotav Uktavav, She’elot Utshuvot Veigrot,” 81–82. This book deals with love and the agony that follows it. On his work as a linguist see: Aaron Rubin, “Samuel Archivolti and the Antiquity of Hebrew Pointing,” JQR 101 (2011), 233–43. Schwarz., “Rabbi Shmuel Arkovolty: Toldotav Uktavav, She’elot Utshuvot Veigrot,” 70–71. Schwarz., “Rabbi Shmuel Arkovolty: Toldotav Uktavav, She’elot Utshuvot Veigrot,” 71. Deborah Bergman, “Shloshesre Sonatin Lerabi Shmuel Archivolti,” Italya 7 (1988), 29. See also 86–88. Samuel Archivolti, Ma’ayan Ganim (Venice, Italy: 1553), 45. Bonfil suggests that this might be a real letter: Ruben Bonfil, Bemarah Ksufa: H . ayei Hayehudim Beitalyah Biymei Harenesanse (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center 1994), 104. David Gianfranco Di Segni, “Le Donne e lo studio della Torá: uno scambio epistolare fra Dina e Rabbi Samuele Archivolti nell’Italia del Rinascimento,” in Minchat Yehuda: Saggi sull’Ebraismo Italiano in Memoria di Yehuda nello Pavoncello, Angello Piatelli et al., eds. (Rome: Unione delle Communità Ebraiche Italiane, 2001), 151–76. See Torah Tmima Dt 11:19. He remarked that he does not know who the author of Ma’ayan Ganim was who wrote such an innovative adjudication, although R. Archivolti was a known decisor and cited in rabbinic literature e.g. Siftey Daat Shulh.an Aruch Yoreh De’ah D 103 (1). The following chapters will mention many who quote this passage. For example, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, Tiz. Eliezer,

30

83 84 85

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

86 87 88 89 90 91

The halachic infrastructure vol. 9 (Jerusalem: 1967), section 3. See also Arthur Silver, “May Women be Taught Bible, Mishnah and Talmud?,” Tradition 17:3 (1978), 80. http://seforim.blogspot.com/search?q=Maayan+Ganim retrieved 10/6/2013. Meir Benayaho, Rabi H . ayyim Yosef David Azulai, (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1959), 9–77. Moshe Avigdor Shulvas, Roma Veyrushalayim: Toldot Hayah.as Shel Yehudei ‘Italiyah Le’eretz-Yisrael (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1944), 160–69. Benayaho, Rabi H . ayyim Yosef David Azulai, 109–10. H . ayyim Joseph David Azulai, Tov Ayin (Jerusalem 1961), section 4. H . ayyim Joseph David Azulai, Yosef Omez., (Livorno: 1798), section 67. H . ayyim Joseph David Azulai, Yosef Omez., 67 from more sources of the H . YDA see: Birchey Yosef, YD 246. H . ayyim Joseph David Azulai, Ptah. Enayim (Jerusalem: 1959), 197–98. See also his glosses on Sefer Hasidim (Margaliyot) section 313; Birchey Yosef, OC 47.

2

Fighting assimilation

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

Whether as exemption or prohibition, a reading of the few canonical texts yields a clear legal result: women should not learn Torah. What little they do learn is not the exhaustive learning in response to the commandment to learn Torah, but the minimum needed to perform in traditional gender roles. Beginning in the nineteenth century, however, the changing face of Jewish communities bears new features of secularism, nationalism, and assimilation. Intentionally or not, many of these options were introduced through educational systems granting access to Jews. Women who learned foreign languages introduced secular literature to their brothers who studied in the yeshiva. They were able to work in non-Jewish institutions and enter a wider, nonJewish social circle. Modern governments and Jewish organizations following the Enlightenment ideal of universal education offered opportunities for women. Yet the rabbinical establishment, seeing such change as antithetical to traditional Jewish life, was slow to act. Given Jewish women’s prominent role in the labor market in eighteenthand nineteenth-century Russia and Galicia, scholars have taken a look at women’s role in other areas of Jewish public life, especially in the Jewish Enlightenment in Eastern Europe.1 Iris Porush maintains that women acted as inadvertent agents of change: prevented from studying Jewish subjects, they turned to secular subjects and literature. While the boys learned Talmud, girls might read novels in Polish or German.2 Girls’ schools were not supervised by rabbis, so the curriculum was exclusively secular. These early girls’ schools, which opened in Poland at the beginning of the nineteenth century, operated under government supervision and were quite successful.3 Similar schools opened in Russia.4 Success was relative, however, as the number of schools in Poland was small,5 and even in Russia the absolute numbers were not high. In parts of Eastern Europe ruled by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the government established a school system with the goal of making Jews into productive citizens. Later, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Jewish children were integrated into general schools, and hundreds of Jewish boys and girls from all over Galicia enrolled in Catholic schools.6 In these institutions, any Jewish studies for girls were severely limited.7 At the same time,

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

32

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

a new class of educated women emerged, accompanied by accelerated secularization.8 Similar phenomena were noted in Russia.9 Despite legal and financial barriers, registration of Jewish students to institutions of higher education in Moscow and Kiev show high numbers in proportion to the Jewish population.10 Thus by 1890, forty per cent of Jewish girls attended government schools, as opposed to only a quarter of the boys.11 Much of the Jewish population, however, had little general or religious knowledge. A large percentage of women did not benefit from the Jewish Enlightenment, and only a few knew how to read and write. There were several models of educational institutions for women in Eastern Europe, among them h.adarim (lit. “rooms”, singular h.eder) the traditional model of elementary Jewish education for girls.12 They were schools managed by women who taught girls reading, writing, fundamental arithmetic, and basic mastery of prayers and literature, like Z.enah Ur’nah and Menorat Hama’or. Another model of joint h.adarim for boys and girls existed for a short time. After completing the h.eder, boys continued with Talmud study, but girls had no Jewish educational alternative.13 Young women’s education was domestic or vocational: they acquired knowledge intended for business, along with homemaking skills like sewing.14 The only statistical study of Jewish education in nineteenth-century Russia was conducted in the 1890s. It revealed 191,505 males and fewer than 10,459 girls in 13,683 h.adarim.15 These statistics may not reflect the whole picture, however, because they do not take into account women’s full exposure to education. Young girls might receive a basic education and then drop out of the system. In a survey conducted in 1897, about thirty per cent of females aged 10–30 knew Russian. Other studies with smaller samples showed significant percentages of illiteracy. Stampfer concludes that even if the data about illiteracy (including in Yiddish) were correct, many women possessed only basic skills without sovereign command of the language.16 Since the Jewish establishment placed little importance on Jewish education for girls, they were much more exposed to secular education. This in turn led to a greater gap between secular and Jewish identity, in which they received little formal training. Women who did not obtain a significant Jewish education were much more prone to secularization,17 and some even converted to Christianity.18 Contemporary newspaper accounts suggest the Jewish press reacted with greater alarm to conversions19 of women than of men.20 Jewish Enlightenment discourse broadly criticized the h.eder. Most of the critics were graduates of the system themselves and knew firsthand the need for massive reform.21 Already in 1860, discussions arose on the need for changes in the education of girls.22 Among chief concerns were the mother’s role in forming the identity of her children and an increasing integration into non-Jewish society that required teaching women Russian so they would stop speaking “jargon” (Yiddish). Beyond the merely practical, some Jewish activists developed ideological reasons for women’s education, while Mendele Moykher Sforim prized it as a central value of the Haskhala.23

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

33

The Jewish press also highlighted the founding of the first private institutions designed for girls, where they mastered Russian and other languages, math, and Jewish studies, and during the 1860s and 1870s, press reports were positive.24 Sending girls to public schools or educating them with modern tutors, it was felt, led to a dissonance that caused Jewish women to leave the path of Judaism.25 Some in the Orthodox press acknowledged the problem with girls’ education, yet attacked those who wanted Jewish education for their daughters.26 At the end of the nineteenth century, Vossh.ud, the main Russian Jewish newspaper in Russian, published many articles on the need for Jewish and Hebrew education for girls. An editorial decried that out of hundreds of thousands only ten thousand Jewish girls attended Jewish schools in the Pale of Settlement.27 The educational journal Bodoshchnost published several articles in 1902 reporting on developments in women’s education.28 These contemporary witnesses show that most reform involved exactly this point – Jewish education for girls. Criticism in Jewish public discourse centered on the lack of an educational framework that would create a strong Jewish identity among girls, and that creation of this identity was possible only through study of the texts that stood at its heart. The only existing model available to the rabbinic establishment came from German Orthodoxy. In the early days of the Haskhala, great efforts were made to create a Jewish educational system that would foster the changes that the Maskhilim (proponents of the Enlightenment) hoped to make in Jewish society.29 German Orthodoxy tried to respond to these challenges, albeit somewhat late, with a solution that would also encompass girls’ education. When liberal Jewish schools began closing as children transferred to nonJewish schools, Orthodox congregations began establishing their own schools incorporating secular studies to compete with their non-Jewish counterparts.30 At the center of the change was Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, the founder of neo-Orthodoxy in Germany and one of the first advocates for educational institutions for girls. Hirsch distinguishes between mada hatorah (science of Torah), the masculine study intended for men, and feminine safrut hatorah (Torah literature), consisting mainly of scripture, prayers, tractate Avot, and literature written specifically for women.31 From the very beginning, women’s education was limited to a specific kind of literature. For its proponents, the core of later discourse will be what properly constitutes this “woman’s canon.” Among Orthodox rabbis in Germany, education for girls evoked little ideological discussion, with R. Hirsch mentioning it only twice in his published works. In his article on education, he barely distinguishes between the sexes.32 In his commentary on the prayer book, R. Hirsch writes that women are not obligated to be knowledgeable except for “the same knowledge required for fear of God, which brings strict and complete observance of commandments,” which “is related to the formation of the spirit and heart of our daughters as well as our sons.”33 This is the first public Orthodox reaction to the educational crisis.34

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

34

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

While Orthodox society in Eastern Europe debated solutions over several decades, the attitude among the Jewish public toward education changed decisively. New educational structures were created, independent of socioeconomic conditions or the options instituted by the government. Between the world wars, a pluralistic Jewish educational system developed, reflecting the different streams of Polish Jewry.35 Similar solutions emerged in Lithuania,36 where a modern educational system only for girls was created within the Yavneh network. Nominally under religious Zionist control, for all practical purposes it belonged to Agudat Yisrael. These schools were created with the approval of religious leaders such as Rabbi Joseph Bloch, head of the Telz Yeshiva, one of the most important yeshivas in Lithuania.37 Other institutions were established with the encouragement of Rabbi Joseph Kahaneman, who established Poneviz Yeshiva in Israel. Different from the Orthodox model of the rest of Eastern Europe, these schools exemplify a model unique to Lithuania. Here there was a far higher level of cooperation between the different branches of Orthodoxy: by 1936, the system was serving 14,000 young men. In the framework of integrated secular and Jewish studies, the girls learned scriptures, but parental demand forced a greater emphasis on secular studies.38 Even the Zionist movement experimented with creating educational institutions for girls to address its previous neglect, with various degrees of success.39 A significant Orthodox response to these challenges only coalesced between the world wars, but it did not come from rabbinic leadership, but rather through the grassroots initiatives of the Beis Yaakov system.40 This may have even been the historical trigger for the creation of the Agudat Yisrael party as the united political body of h.aredi society.41

Historical role of Beis Yaakov institutions During the First World War, an unassuming seamstress from Cracow emerged as one of the most intriguing figures in the revolution of women’s education. As a grassroots activist, Sarah Schenirer went on to create the Beis Yaakov network and became an iconic figure in the h.aredi world.42 H . aredi writings describe her as a daughter of a h.asidic family from Cracow with deep religious sensitivity. During a sojourn in Vienna, she came to realize that the absence of educational institutions for girls was the greatest barrier to preventing secularization. A Hannukah sermon by Rabbi Dr. Flesch that saw in the women of the Hannukah miracle an essential role of women in the future of Judaism, she writes, sparked an idea. Upon returning to Poland she decided to start educating Jewish women. Her initial attempts targeted young Jewish women already part of the work force. Disappointed when these women proved unreceptive, she felt the only way forward would be to create an educational institution catering to girls from Orthodox families currently sent to non-religious institutions.43

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

35

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

She founded a small school with the blessing of the h.asidic rebbe Issachar Dov of Belz. The system grew quickly, establishing branches all over Poland. The author of the Mishnah Berurah, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Hakohen of Radin (known by his nickname the H . afez. H . ayyim), crafted the text that would become the central source for the legitimization of Beis Yaakov institutions: And it seems that all this [i.e., the prohibition of Rabbi Eli’ezer], specifically in those times, when each one lived in the same place as his forefathers, and the acceptance of one’s father’s ways was very strong within each person, to act in the way of his forefathers, as the scripture says [Deut. 32:7] “Ask your father and he will tell you”– with this we could have said that she would not learn Torah, and would rely on instruction from her righteous fathers. But now, in our great iniquities, the tradition of our fathers has been greatly diluted, and it is common not to live in the same place as one’s forefathers – especially those women who are learning to read and write the languages of the nations, it is a great miz.vah to teach them scripture and the prophets and holy writings and the moral writings of our holy sages, like the tractate of Ethics of the Fathers and the book Menorat Hama’or and others, so that our holy faith will resonate with them, because if not, they might leave the path of God completely, and commit sins against the foundations of our faith, God forbid.44 Despite its ex post facto character, this opinion was seminal for establishing halachic legitimacy for Beis Yaakov.45 Ideally, girls should be educated in Judaism by their mothers in an unbroken tradition. In a much more mobile generation battling modernization, however, it was necessary to depart from this ideal and teach Bible as well as books of ethics in a school setting. The exception to standard Halacha remains ungrounded. There is no way to know whether the H . afez. H . ayym meant his position as one of survival in a war of destruction, a view that the Mishnah’s position is a recommendation and not a ruling, or some other line of reasoning. Whatever the case, these short lines were the source of authority under which the Beis Yaakov system operated. This text also established the parameters of later discourse, one might say, of a particular genre of speaking authoritatively about women’s education. The solution is “temporary” a measure necessary in troubled times where the danger of secularism and assimilation demands the ex post facto approval, even if on shaky halachic grounds, of an institution that has proved effective against a greater social evil. The letter of the law also requires a firm limitation on the “women’s canon.” In time, even more Beis Yaakov schools were established, by some estimates over 200 schools by 1935.46 Some served girls who attended full time, others provided vocational training, and still others provided supplemental education to girls studying simultaneously at other institutions. A seminary in Cracow trained teachers for the system.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

36

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

The success of Beis Yaakov was tied to the support it received from the Agudat Yisrael movement. Deborah Weissman maintains that the movement had a revolutionary air, both in women’s roles in society and women’s religious identity and involvement.47 In order to tone down the revolutionary message, the heads of the movement adopted a rhetoric pointing the finger of blame not at the rabbinic establishment, but at parents – particularly fathers who had neglected the education of their daughters. Another feature of the rhetoric argued that the historical situation was so extreme that it was now necessary to say, “It is time to act for God” (A rabbinic exegesis of Psalms 119:126, explaining that sometimes acting for God requires deviation from the Law).48 Weissman’s estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000 female students. Friedman cites a report by the Beis Yaakov Center in Vienna presented in a book by a leading figure in the movement during the 1930’s, Dr. Leo Deutschlander, numbering 28,310 students in 219 institutions.49 Scattered among the h.aredi public discussions in Eastern Europe are a few examples of significant opposition to the Beis Yaakov institutions. In a letter published in the Jüdische Zeitung, Rabbi H . ayyim Elazar Shapira of Munkatch complains, among other things, about noise: And even the h.adarim for young girls [lit., virgins] that the agudists call “Beis Yaakov,” the righteous and h.asidic and truly God-fearing thousands who call them “Beth Esau” … in these houses of Esau that are near rooms of prayer, arguments and insults were heard through the walls, songs (“the voice of a woman is genitalia” [a Talmudic expression suggesting that hearing a woman sing is as immodest as looking at genitalia]) of young girls, Lecha Dodi heard during the silent prayer of the H . asidim, and who has heard of such a thing? And since when did our forefathers permit teaching holy songs and music to young girls?50 The image of the Jewish graduate of Beis Yaakov was different from that of a Jewish woman at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and this led the Munkatcher Rebbe to identify Beis Yaakov as a danger. The danger was change, but its source was not the teaching of secular subjects – or even boisterous singing – but teaching Jewish holy works.

Women’s educational institutions in pre-state Israel In pre-state Israel during the nineteenth century, an Ashkenazi community developed that became known as the Old Yishuv (settlement). With representatives from all over the world who sought to express their spirituality in the Holy Land, it was a microcosm of Jewish society. Single women also immigrated to the Land of Israel for religious reasons,51 and the small community formed a significant minority among the Arab majority. Until the Evelina de Rothschild School was founded in 1854, women in nineteenth-century Jerusalem almost completely lacked access to educational

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

37

institutions.52 From its inception, the primary goal of the Rothschild school was to prepare girls vocationally.53 Other attempts to organize educational institutions for girls were launched, all focusing solely on basic literacy skills.54 The situation changed when Fortuna Bekher was appointed principal of the Rothschild family school. Bekher expanded the areas of study, adding mathematics, history, geography, French, Arabic, and English. At a certain stage the study of Hebrew received more emphasis, with all lessons taught in Hebrew. Following the support of Agudat Ah.im, parallel to the British Jewish Alliance, its supervision and funding grew. The building was replaced and despite the opposition of the city’s rabbis, Ashkenazi students began attending.55 When Bekher was fired in 1900, the assertive London-born Annie Landau was appointed as principal in her place.56 Other educational institutions were established during the first third of the twentieth century, including schools for more modern communities like the school of Chana Shpiz.er, associated with the Mizrah.i movement.57 The Beit Yeladim and Beit Mah.aseh H . inukh Lyetomot were founded in 1902 with the support of the city’s Ashkenazi rabbis. Radical Orthodox elements recognized their inability to deal with the popularity of institutions for girls such as the Rothschild school. These newer institutions offered only a basic curriculum of reading, writing, prayers, sewing, and the like.58 Ben Z.ion Yadler, a Jerusalem preacher, was behind one of these early attempts.59 In 1921 the “Old Beis Yaakov” was founded. Established in the Old City, additional branches later opened in Me’ah She’arim. There is now one remaining branch in the Beit Yisrael neighborhood near the Mir Yeshiva. Historical accounts tell of a poor institution in constant financial straits. The school provided limited instruction in reading and sewing, taught in Yiddish. The schools of the Edah H . aredit, the most isolationist faction in h.aredi society, later integrated basic mathematics and a small amount of nature studies into their curricula.60 Later, institutions serving the most radical elements of the h.aredi community were also established,61 which observed the prohibition of teaching Torah to girls to varying degrees. In the 1970s, these schools dealt with the study of geshichte, history, meaning the history of Israel from the time of the patriarchs in the Bible and the Oral Torah. These studies, like grammar, mathematics and Jewish law, were learned from pamphlets in Yiddish. Some of the Edah’s institutions began to incorporate more advanced Jewish studies, including the study of the Pentateuch without commentaries.62 Institutions like Beis Brakha, founded by Karlin-Stolin h.asidim in 1964, and Bnos Rah.el, founded by American immigrants in 1971, allowed the study of the Pentateuch with Rashi’s commentary alongside study of the Prophets. In later years, history, science, and the foundations of Hebrew language were added.63 A more recent review describes two additional institutions for girls of the Edah H . aredit in Jerusalem – Bnos Yerushalayim and Nevos Yisroel, which mainly served girls from the h.asidic communities of Toldot Aharon and Toldot Avraham Yiz.h.ak. The Satmar h.asidim, only willing to fund educational

38

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

institutions which refused to accept money from the Israeli government, required that girls no longer learn the Pentateuch with commentaries, which were taught at Nevos Yisroel.64 Toldot Avraham-Yiz.h.ak, which continued to allow the girls to learn commentaries, was seen as more modern.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The first rabbinic reactions to changes in women’s education For millennia only a minor halachic discussion, in the late nineteenth through the twentieth centuries, women’s Torah study became one of the most pressing issues in Jewish public life. The few relevant canonical sources became the target of microcriticism by rabbis anxious to balance the need for women’s education in a changing world with the prohibitions and exemptions in the canon. Much discussion will revolve around the “women’s canon”: which canonical texts are appropriate for women and why. Both in scope and purpose, this collection of texts is radically different from that studied by men. Often in Yiddish rather than Hebrew, the women’s canon is essentially derivative literature focusing more on stories and parables than law. Designed to strengthen a woman’s religious role in the family, the primary locus of learning has traditionally been the home, with transmission from mother to daughter. These texts and the discourse about them embody an image of the ideal Jewish woman. Remaining in the private, domestic sphere of home customs and rituals, her religious life grows out of her gender role.65 Traditions like lighting the Sabbath candles or the keeping a kosher kitchen shape a feminine religious life. Prayers at the lighting of Sabbath candles or at Sabbath’s end are the woman’s liturgy. This ideal woman appears well described in the the Arukh Hashulh.an of Rabbi Jeh.iel Michael Halevi Epstein. Written in a simple language with a larger readership in mind, Epstein’s work refrains from lengthy “masculine” halachic proofs, yet provides halachic rulings across the breadth of Jewish life.66 R. Epstein’s stance on women’s Torah study adopts the traditional position of Ashkenazi decisors: A woman is not commanded in Torah study and the halachic decisors have written that a woman who studies Torah has a reward, but not the same as a man since she has not been commanded. Even though she gets a reward, the sages [Sotah 20:1] commanded not to teach one’s daughter Torah. The sages said that everyone who teaches his daughter Torah teaches her tiflut, meaning a sin, and the reason is their lightheadedness: they take the words of the Torah and turn them into nonsense according to their poor understanding. [ … ] They never used to be taught from a book, and we have not heard of any custom other than that the wellknown laws are taught by each woman to her daughter and daughter-inlaw, and more so now that the laws for women have been printed in the vernacular and are within their ability to read from them, and our

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

39

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

women are quick to ask in cases of doubt, and do not rely on their knowledge even in the smallest of small things.67 R. Epstein recalls the ruling of the Shulh.an Arukh and Rabbi Moshe Isserles, but also shows his familiarity with the situation in Lithuania, where women did not study Halachot relevant to daily life from a book. At most, he sees books of Halacha in Yiddish as a novelty. He sees no need to encourage an educational system for women: they need not rely on their own judgment and may ask a rabbi for instruction. Rather than fulfilling the commandment at the center of Jewish religious life to study Torah, education of women is a tool necessary to perform their traditional roles in the Jewish community. The woman projecting from these texts has specific roles assigned to her by gender. In his work on gender roles in Poland, Moshe Rosman holds that in daily life there were no different spheres for males and females. They worked together and the male-controlled cultural elite enabled the uneducated masses, men and women alike, to take part in cultural life through Yiddish literature and newspapers. Even though Rosman may have shown that the idea of different spheres is not useful historically, the assumption of a dimorphic Orthodox universe informs virtually all rhetoric on women’s Torah study. The rabbinic leadership emphasizes that women have a different religious role: to perform faithfully and fully as wife and mother, to support men’s Torah study as an auxiliary force, and not desire to enter the male realm of the Beit Midrash.68 Shoel U’Meishiv: the first response to change The first rabbinic response to women’s education in the summer of 1844 was not a call for practical measures but a theoretical debate about Maimonides coupled with a justification of women’s education as a practical tool that enables performing traditional gender roles. The rabbi of an influential Jewish community in Galician Lemberg/Lvov, Rabbi Joseph Saul Halevi Nathanson,69 authored the book of responsa Sho’el U’Meishiv.70 Remembered as a peacemaker, he navigated between two extremes that sometimes resulted in outbreaks of violence:71 archconservative h.aredim and reforming Maskhilim. In a controversy over machine-made maz.ah, R. Nathanson supported the modern process. His opponents saw him as an agent of social change, injecting the spirit of reform from Germany into a faithful Judaism through the mechanization of matzah production.72 Sensitive to the needs of a Jewish society struggling with modernity, he was not afraid of opposing the dominant personalities among the rabbinic leadership of Galicia and Poland, who viewed virtually any change as a dangerous harbinger of religious reforms.73 In women’s education, however, R. Nathanson saw no real need for change and did not identify any serious threat that demanded rethinking women’s education. Girls received a basic Jewish education, but not on a systematic or

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

40

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

exhaustive scale. Although many women overstepped community boundaries in the direction of secularism, assimilation, and abandonment of traditional values, the rabbinic establishment had not yet addressed the modern erosion of Jewish identity among Eastern European Jewish women. Through the traditional allegorical reading of the Hakhel, the responsum first makes the distinction between the Written and Oral Torah. According to the Talmud in H . agiga 3b, there is a substantive difference between women’s and men’s learning: the latter learn while the former merely listen. Women should be taught enough Torah so they will understand the passage about sacrifices in the prayer book and thus may recite the blessings on the Torah over the passage, as mentioned by R. Jacob Landau in Sefer ha-Agor. A rationale comes from an unusual angle: an analogy to ritual slaughter by women.74 Halachic literature does not agree on the level of religious knowledge necessary for a ritual slaughterer.75 R. Nathanson cites the ruling of the Beit Yosef, who in turn hearkens back to Rabbi Amram Gaon: … If a Shoh.et does not know the Halachot of inspection [for errors in the process of ritual slaughter], one may not eat from something that he has inspected … until [the shoh.tim] take it upon themselves not to do any more [inspection] until they are knowledgeable of the twenty-four holy books [of the Bible] and several chapters of the Talmud, and know the laws of ritual slaughter.76 This raises the question of how a woman could slaughter. She is forbidden to study, yet the Mishnah allows women to perform this task. Just as women say the blessings of the Torah over the liturgical passages on the sacrifices, because they were obligated to offer sacrifices when the Temple was standing, they may learn the laws of ritual slaughter directly relating to sacrifices. Now, since the Temple has been destroyed and sacrifices have ceased, there is no need to study the topic in depth. Therefore both learning and slaughter are forbidden for women, and the only passages they are permitted to learn are the short passages on sacrifices from the prayer book. Women are excluded from Torah study and there is no reason to reread the texts to allow them access. Quite the opposite, it should be explained how in the past women had more access to Torah. The end of the second chapter of tractate Ketubot discusses slaves owned by Jews and their exposure to Torah. The Talmud mentions R. Joshua ben Levi, who ruled that one cannot teach his Canaanite slave Torah. But a slave might learn of his own free will.77 Rabbi Bezalel ben Abraham Ashkenazi in Shitah Mekubetzet78 brings up a question based on the similar status of slaves and women: why does the Talmud not say that one should make a distinction between the Written and the Oral Torah? He answers that a woman is permitted to learn the basic laws, but a slave is forbidden even that.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

41

This responsum was written at a time when education for girls was under public discussion in Eastern European Jewish society. The responsum is theoretical: as a class, women can study rudimentary rules that apply to their traditional gender roles. They are allowed to learn more than slaves, but there are no clear guidelines what canonical works this might entail. R. Nathanson, whom Gertner described as maintaining a constructive dialogue with modernity,79 does not demonstrate willingness to dissent from the accepted interpretation of the passage – this despite the public discourse in Eastern Europe on Jewish education for girls, which was already leading to the founding of schools. A further answer to this question twenty years hence from one of the dominant rabbinic personalities of Lithuania takes a similar stance. Beit HaLevi: a theoretical framework A seminal responsum by Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik explains that women’s Torah study is a category of its own, not study for its own sake in response to the commandment to study Torah, but a practical measure instrumental to observing the commandments. The grandson of Rabbi H . ayyim of Volozhin and a student of the Vilna Gaon, he was the founder of the Volozhin yeshiva, the prototype of that institution in the modern age. A comprehensive popular biography describes R. Soloveitchik and his activities against the background of the upheavals of his era. He was the head of the largest yeshivas in the second half of the nineteenth century.80 Also the rabbi of the Sloz.k and Brisk communities,81 he faced many challenges: his struggle with modernity and his attempts to bring changes encouraged both by wealthy Jews and by a Russian government hoping to encourage Russification at the expense of Jewish identity. He especially fought against the introduction of secular studies into Jewish educational institutions.82 The analytical methodology of the Brisk dynasty83 is presaged by the book of responsa Beit HaLevi, originally published in 1863. Although the prime exemplar of the Brisk method is the author’s son, the book exhibits similar characteristics, especially in its almost exclusively theoretical nature. The only rhetorical situation, at least on the surface, is yeshiva discourse. The method then produces a “pure” text disconnected from practical considerations that would limit its scope to an ad hoc reaction. In this case, Torah study for women is presented from a phenomenological approach, establishing a position without explicitly addressing the establishment of schools and defining their curriculum. The question in section 6 of the Beit HaLevi84 arose during study of Jewish law in Sefer Hamiz.vot by Maimonides. In chapter 7 of the Laws of Torah Scrolls, Maimonides rules that because a woman is not obligated to study Torah, she is exempt from the commandment of writing a Torah scroll. Rabbi Aryeh Leib Gunzberg, the author of the Sha’agat Aryeh, Section 35, finds this exemption problematic because although women are exempt from the

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

42

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

commandment of learning Torah, they are still obligated to learn some of the commandments: this because a woman recites the blessings on the Torah due to her obligation to study the commandments she is required to observe. Although a woman is obligated to recite the blessings on the Torah, she is exempt from the study of Torah in the Talmud in Kiddushin, Sotah and H . agiga. Women thus learn the commandments to which they are obligated, because they need to perform them. There is no independent obligation for a woman to involve herself with Torah study unless the study is connected to the fulfillment of a specific commandment. A woman is not obligated to learn about commandments that do not apply to her, such as purity and sanctification. The reason she recites the blessing on Torah study is that in correctly fulfilling the commandments, there is no fear of tiflut. Therefore she is permitted, according to the primary halachic decisors of Ashkenaz, to recite blessings on time-bound commandments from which she is exempt. Two concepts emerge in relation to Torah study: as a tool allowing the observance of the commandments, and as an independent obligation, unrelated to the studied texts. There is also a definitive ideological stance toward the primary ethos of the Orthodox Jewish world, Torah study. The message here is unequivocal: women cannot take part in Torah study in its purest state. There is a qualitative difference between the study of a woman and that of a man even if they are studying the same text. A woman’s Torah study is marginal and contingent, while a man’s Torah study is an end in and of itself. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik’s grandson, Rabbi Isaac Ze’ev Soloveitchik, known as the Rabbi of Brisk, quoted his father, the founder of Brisk methodology, as saying that one should distinguish between blessings recited on the observance of a commandment and blessings invoked for the use of a particular required item. In this case women are not commanded to study Torah, but the act of studying Torah, or in the language of Brisk, the h.efz.a of Torah study, requires a blessing: “ … women are exempt only from the commandment of Torah study, but are not excluded from the actual h.efz.a of Torah study, and their study is included in the category of Torah study, and it is worthy to recite a blessing on their study…”85 R. Soloveitchik adds that the study of women is a means, not an end. Women learn because they must fulfill the practices required by the Torah, but they cannot learn purely for the sake of learning. That is reserved for men and is the purpose of the Jewish man’s existence, perhaps even the central purpose for which he was created and through which he maintains the world. The grandfather, author of Beit HaLevi, became one of the founding figures of the Orthodox ethos. His role in establishing the Brisk school earned him importance long after his lifetime. The house of Brisk and the Beit HaLevi’s message in particular played an important role in shaping Orthodox attitudes toward Torah study. His clear formulation regarding the role – or to be exact the lack of role – for women in the miz.vah of Torah study and his ruling that a woman’s study is of lower quality than that of a man echo throughout later discourse.

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

43

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The Rabbinic Conference in Cracow: a public discussion among Eastern European Rabbis In 1901, a rabbinic congress was organized by the rabbi of the Ashkenazi community in Cairo, Rabbi Aaron Mendel Hacohen. With rabbis from around the Jewish world invited to attend, its purpose was to organize a general committee of rabbis to address contemporary problems. The topics discussed at the gathering were extensive. The Jewish press showed great interest, and hoped to draw comprehensive conclusions. According to reports by participants, questions discussed at the congress reflected the agenda of Eastern European Jewry from a h.aredi point of view. High hopes for the conference ended in bitter disappointment, primarily because the rabbi of Cracow strongly opposed what he saw as a gateway to reforms in Halacha.86 However many challenges faced by h.aredi communities were addressed, including the current state of girls’ education.87 Rabbi Menachem Mendel Landau, rabbi of a town near Warsaw who participated in the congress, reports on addressing the congress in his book Mekiz. Nirdamim. The need for supervision of girls’ education is no less important than that of boys: “Let us not forget that our young girls will be the mothers of the next generation.”88 H . aredi fathers do not want to send their daughters to government schools, so they hire private teachers. Yet this is worse, because the teachers teach romantic literature and literature that opposes religion and modest behavior. He proposes hiring God-fearing men for the boys and religiously observant women for the girls. To him, the lack of attention to education would lead the girls to abandon the ways of the Torah and the commandments, and as mothers they would not raise their children in the ways of the Torah.89 As he addressed the congress, he started to say that if the matter of education were not corrected there would be serious consequences: This is for me like an untapped flame in my bones, consuming me as I read these words that will cause your heart to feel pain. My heart is full of wounds from the terrible fate that has befallen me, to spread out the disgusting linen before all.90 At this point a few rabbis guessed what he was about to discuss. They interrupted him, asking him to stop because reporters were present. R. Landau honored their request. In his book he explains that the dirty laundry he was about to air was the traffic in women for prostitution spreading among the Jews of Eastern Europe. This phenomenon, he maintained, was common mainly among the lower classes, so permissiveness was not the cause. Instead he blamed it on lack of education. He called for establishing a committee to be called Shomer Yisrael (guardian of Israel) that would foster education for women and girls in observance of the commandments along with vocational training, and would even organize a dowry supported by community funds.91

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

44

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

Rabbi Akiva Rabinovich of Poltava, editor of Hapeles, opposed Rabbi Landau. R. Rabinovich raised a number of reservations, emphasizing not teaching Torah to girls, since the sages taught that to teach one’s daughter Torah is like teaching her tiflut. R. Landau countered that the words of the sages were written when women did not take part in “outside life,” but now that they learn secular studies, Torah study should not be neglected.92 At this point he added a short paragraph in Rashi script, identifying it as a halachic text. This addition was not presented at the conference and it provides halachic justification for his position. Even though according to the letter of the law a woman is exempt from Torah study in our time, she has an obligation to learn Torah because she studies other subjects, and will be harmed if she does not learn Torah. R. Moshe Isserles in Yoreh Deah 246:6 requires a woman to learn the laws that are relevant for her, and since the Torah is a force of protection and salvation from evil inclinations, one should teach her Torah. There is no contradiction between R. Isserles and Maimonides, who says that there is a concern that a woman will twist the Torah for her own purposes, because there is no issue regarding commandments that are relevant for women. Similarly, since a woman recites blessings on the Torah one cannot say that she only listens to the words of Torah, because one does not recite blessings on learning Torah when only listening because “contemplation is not the same as speech.”93 In other words, women need to learn Jewish texts that will give them a strong Jewish identity and all the warnings against teaching women do not refer to learning necessary to create a committed Jewish woman. Though not an influential decisor, one participant supporting this suggestion was the man responsible for the Talmud Torah schools in Cracow, Rabbi Meir Horowitz. He held that schools should be established for both rich and poor girls to learn the foundations of Judaism and to read and write the local language. According to Mekiz. Nirdamim, the rabbi from Poltava objected to the idea, and the suggestion was rejected.94 Mekiz. Nirdamim mentions that Hapeles reported only that members at the meeting decided the rabbis should take care of the issue of education, but without detailing all the issues involved in the education of girls. I could not, however, find such reports in Hapeles.

Vayelaket Yosef: a public debate in early twentieth-century Europe For more than a year the pages of the rabbinical journal Vayelaket Yosef burned with a debate on Torah study for women. This exchange of opinions in a public venue allows a glimpse at the controversy as it unfolds among rabbis in the field personally experiencing the tension between tradition and modernity. Yet regardless of a writer’s particular stance, in rabbinic circles and the Jewish press there was agreement among rabbinic figures in both Poland

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

45

and Hungary: the problem of girls’ education was a true danger to the survival of traditional Jewish society. Beginning publication at the turn of the twentieth century in Munkatch, Hungary (now Ukraine), Vayelaket Yosef was an Orthodox rabbinic periodical published in Hebrew that dealt with halachic problems of the day. It was a forum not only for the Orthodox Jews of Hungary but also for community leaders from across Central and Eastern Europe. Discussion on the topic of education for girls began in 1906 (vol. 8). Jerusalem Rabbi Shalom Leib Eizenbakh attacked those who wished to teach the holy tongue to both girls and boys. He emphasized that the H . atam Sofer, Rabbi Moses Sofer, one of the founders of Orthodoxy, warned against those who wanted to change the educational system, because they have a hidden agenda: And in truth, behind the intention of the innovators lies another reason, as it is known that a language unifies a nation, and this is only among the nations of the world but is not true with the Israelite nation, the Torah and commandments are what unifies us, but the cult of innovators, who said in their great iniquity “Let us cut their cords … from ourselves” [Ps. 2:3] and who want to imitate the rest of the world’s nations who will recognize the unity of the Israelite people only through language.95 Anyone who wants to change the approach toward education of girls must be judged in the same way. The Taz, he writes, allowed women to learn the literal text of the scriptures as a matter of course, as stated by Rabbi Moshe Shik, one of the leading halachic authorities in nineteenth-century Hungary. The biblical text discussing the Hakhel provides a proof text that in practice women may learn commandments relevant to them. In the case of Hakhel the text speaks of Yirat Shamayim (lit. fear of heaven), which is relevant to both men and women. He adds that Ben Azai might be understood as saying that one should teach women that the merit of learning Torah may suspend punishment for women who behave immodestly, and nothing further. A few months later, Rabbi H . ayyim Dov Grass from the city of Petrova disagreed, referring to the publication of Mekiz. Nirdamim following the rabbinic convention in Cracow. If girls do not learn Torah, he warns, miz.vah observance will diminish: What the rabbinic sages wrote, that whoever teaches his daughter Torah is as if he teaches her tiflut, was in a previous era when there was no knowledge for women except spinning, and they never went outside their homes and knew nothing of outside life, therefore the sages said that women are light-headed and deviousness will develop along with their knowledge – but now that so many licentious [subjects] are studied by them in the municipal schools, why should their Torah study be on a lower level than their other subjects? … 96

46

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

He concludes that one should teach girls the holy tongue along with limiting their time in schools as much as possible while still in accordance with governmental laws. This exchange motivated others to respond. A rabbi in Sighet, Hungary (now Romania), writes: So as has become apparent, their souls keeps silent about healing the break of the “daughter” of my nation by … permitting the clear prohibition in the Talmud and Maimonides because they will take the words of Torah, and in their poor judgment, will invent permission for some prohibitions … and one should let the blood of his soul spill rather than undo a prohibition because of a small possibility that is hardly likely.97 These changes will not help but rather damage kosher girls. Eizenbakh counters that one should not say that the times have changed, because the law of the Torah is immutable. One should be more stringent in this matter, as the Jerusalem Talmud proclaims that words of Torah should be burned rather than passed on to women.98 Responding to his critics in three separate letters, R. Grass maintains that social realities require an educational system for Jewish girls that could provide extensive background in Jewish studies. He bases this demand on the Taz, which allows women to study the literal meaning of the scriptures, and again quotes the author of Mekiz. Nirdamim, who supported education of girls as long as they were not taught Halacha in depth. Girls should only learn about the chain of tradition, the history of the Jewish people, Midrash and moral teachings. One must teach girls in the holy tongue because learning Hebrew has an intrinsic quality that will bring about internalization of Jewish holiness: We will not be able to repair the break by reading mussar [ethics] books published only in jargon [Yiddish] for several reasons: the words were copied from another language and poured from vessel to vessel, so they do not have the power to act to inspire cold hearts and penetrate them with the flames of religious fire like the action of reading the holy Torah in pleasant conversation – in our time the pride and enjoyment are the books of Homer and stories of vanity.99 He rejects the claim by other writers that there is no dispute between Ben Azai and R. Eli’ezer, as this would contradict the literal meaning of the phrase, “A man is obligated to teach his daughter Torah.” Learning the holy tongue should not be laden with concern about the Maskhilim, who supported learning Hebrew along with secularization. In Hungary they assimilated and abandoned both their Jewish identity and the Hebrew language, and one should not worry that others would follow.100 There is also no halachic

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

47

difference between learning Torah in Yiddish or in Hebrew. Moreover, the situation in Jerusalem is not the same as in Hungary:

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

And here the writer sits in Jerusalem, where there are no government clerks [checking] that Jews will go to school, and how can he talk about the countries of Europe in which Jews are required to attend schools, nothing is clean [there], and because she [a female student] knows and tastes from the literature of the nations she is required to taste from our literature which is the holy Torah.101 R. Eizenbakh summarizes his opinion in three points: (1) The Maharam Shik’s criticism of the Taz is because the Taz proves its claim from the biblical text of Hakhel that deals with biblical laws, while here it is a rabbinic decree. (2) He repeats that mussar books in Yiddish can solve the problems of girls’ education. (3) There are many who interpret the words of Ben Azai not as an obligation, but as a general statement on the merit of the Torah. Ultimately, he repudiates any change in women’s education – women should steer clear of any textual study and learn the foundations of Judaism using books in the vernacular. A lively public discussion on the topic of changes in education was taking place in Hungary with a range of opinion similar to the Cracow conference. Opponents feared change in a social tradition supported by straightforward halachic texts. They saw change not required by social realities, but rather stemming from the adoption of liberal values. All sides agreed that there was a new reality facing Orthodoxy and that there was a limit to women’s education set by the canonical sources. The strategy to deal with the problem, however, was not clear: whether to hold to traditional ways or adopt modernist methods and retool them for Orthodoxy.

Rabbi Ze’ev Leiter: a call for change Beginning as a small grassroots project of one courageous woman teaching a few girls in her home, Beis Yaakov became a widespread public institution with teachers, classrooms, and an administration. In the interwar period proponents of the movement attempted to justify this major change in education. One strategy was to point to learned women in Jewish history. Whether as a longer list or a more general reference, praise of such women suggests that, while exceptions, such exceptional women are worthy of imitation. Rhetorically, they provide a balance to the canonical prohibition, while their numbers widen the exception so that other women might follow. Born in Galicia in 1892, Rabbi Ze’ev Wolf Leiter,102 immigrated to the US in 1920, where most of his activity took place. He was active in editing the books of the Rishonim, a field that captured his interest during his yeshiva studies. After the First World War he moved to the Netherlands, where he aided refugees. Leiter’s grandson noted that during this period he published a

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

48

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

German leaflet called “Die Stellung der Frau im Talmud”103 (Status of Women in the Talmud). This pamphlet was published in Amsterdam with the approval of both the head of the Orthodox community in the area and even a Jewish studies researcher from a Dutch university. The pamphlet contains nothing new, merely presenting talmudic sources for traditional attitudes toward women. Adopting an apologetic tone, he points out the need to educate women, intimating that the issue of education for women was important both to him and to the public life of Eastern European Jews. This impression is strengthened by a responsum later published in his book of responsa. The responsum was sent to Hillel Pineles from Galina, who asked in 1912 why the “h.aredim of Israel” refrain from teaching their daughters Torah. An older usage of the word “h.aredi” is a sociological term referring to religious communities, not how the term is currently understood. The Mizrah.i political party also referred to themselves as “h.aredi” until a rather late date. The answer begins with a general statement about the problematic approach: Sadly this is not the first time I have heard sharp criticism of the faithful of Israel who neglected the education of their daughters and in certain circles they are ridiculed. The truth is that this matter is very important for the future of the daughters of Israel, and it is necessary to discuss this question seriously, but we must know that our Torah is truth and the words of our sages are a statute for us. Maimonides and the Shulh.an Arukh [246] rule that it is permitted to teach them the Written Torah and the laws. Our forefathers have told us that in previous generations women knew the Torah of Israel and its laws. If we look with open eyes at the history of Israel in different periods we find women great in Torah, and their knowledge was so great that they gave their opinion on Jewish law, and with all that there was no criticism leveled against them by the h.aredim. They treated the wisdom of these women all the more with appropriate respect. If women were exempt from learning at the expense of fulfilling their various obligations toward their husbands and children, and could not devote their time to expand their knowledge of Torah, with all that, they always knew the laws of Israel and prayers and many also knew the Bible.104 As a supporter of women’s education, R. Leiter sees no contradiction between the Halacha in the Shulh.an Arukh and the establishment of a system for education of women. Yet he is also well aware of the opposition in Orthodox communities to this type of institution. Instead of dealing with the central issue in tractate Sotah and the rulings stemming from it, however, he talks about learned women mentioned in the Talmud and books of responsa. In the past, he implies, even ordinary women had a certain amount of knowledge lacking today. This tradition can only be preserved by transferring the responsibility of education from families now divorced from their traditions to

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

49

a teacher in a classroom. Framing the argument in such a way makes educational institutions for women seem far less revolutionary, since only the locus of education, but not its substance, has changed.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Oz.ar Hah.aim: neo-Orthodox opposition to women’s Torah study The rabbinic leadership of German Orthodoxy was active in establishing women’s schools. While Beis Yaakov may have begun as the vision of one woman in Cracow, it would not have become a cornerstone of Orthodox life without the help of Agudat Yisrael in Germany. Yet even in neo-Orthodoxy there were dissenting voices. Though unsupported by significant halachic proofs, the source of halachic legitimacy for Beis Yaakov after the Second World War was the short letter of the H . afez. H . ayyim. This text came under scrutiny in Oz.ar Hah.ayyim, an Orthodox periodical published in Romania, when R. Zekel Halevi Bamberger raised the issue in 1928. Bamberger served as rabbi of the resort town Bad Kissingen in southern Germany105 and was the son of a rabbinic family active in Germany for several generations.106 His grandfather, R. Isaac Dov, was the head of the rabbinical court in Würzburg, active alongside R. Samson Raphael Hirsch and R. Esriel Hildesheimer in shaping German neo-Orthodoxy. R. Bamberger’s short article surveys the sources concerning women’s Torah study in the Talmud and the Rishonim. Citing the opinion of H . afez. H . ayyim’s book Likutei Halachot, he then questions the wisdom of teaching women Rashi’s commentary and the Kiz.ur Shulh.an Arukh. At most, one may teach women the skills needed to study Jewish texts so they can learn on their own. R. Bamberger bears witness to the strength of the opposition to changes in the education of women and the way it viewed the establishment of Beis Yaakov. The questioner is a student of German neo-Orthodoxy, the same group that offered financial and administrative support to Beis Yaakov institutions and had been providing its own religious education to girls for several decades. Yet R. Bamberger still objects to the study of Rashi’s commentary and the Kiz.ur Shulh.an Arukh. Two responses to this question were published in the next volume of the periodical. The first was a brief reply from the rabbi of the congregation Mah.zikei Hadat in Copenhagen, Rabbi Michael Winkler. Winkler maintains that despite the merit of Bamberger’s opinion, in such critical times one may rely on Maimonides that when one teaches his daughter the Written Torah, she has the same reward ex post facto as one who is not commanded yet observes. Because of this, the H . afez. H . ayyim ruled that one should teach Written Torah and the required laws, but refused to permit teaching Torah with Rashi’s commentary or laws that women do not need to know from the Kiz.ur Shulh.an Arukh. The only point on which he diverges from the H . afez. H . ayyim is that the latter holds that girls should not learn foreign

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

50

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

languages, while Rabbi Winkler feels that one may teach them as a matter of course.107 A longer response was written by the editor of the periodical, Rabbi H . ayyim Judah Ehrenreich. His field was Orthodox Wissenschaft des Judentums, and in his journal he often expressed his halachic perspective on current issues. He surveys the halachic discussion from the Mishnah and the discussions of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds on the exegesis of the commandment of Hakhel, emphasizing the distinction between women who come to listen and men who come to study. It is thus permitted to speak words of Torah to women, but there is a definite prohibition against teaching them in depth.108 He notes that in an Orthodox Hungarian weekly published in Budapest, one of the writers criticized R. Bamberger for permitting women to learn alone and that one must teach them Hebrew. The Hungarian weekly countered that “this is not the approach of Hungarian Orthodoxy.” R. Ehrenreich rejected the criticism: I don’t know what he means. If he is referring to the Halacha that women can learn for themselves, this is astonishing: does Hungarian Orthodoxy object to a Halacha brought down in the Talmud and Rishonim? And as far as knowledge of Hebrew, “Strange, strange,” I call out. Should not the cohen’s wife be as reliable as the innkeeper?109 There are ample halachic grounds, R. Ehrenreich concludes, for allowing women to learn the basic tenets of Judaism. He dismisses criticism from Hungarian Orthodoxy, suggesting as well that stringency beyond the demands of Halacha is in itself a reform. This exchange in an Orthodox journal shows a grassroots reaction to the debate on women’s education. The different rabbis are reacting in real time to the issue and are free to direct their opinions toward the larger social picture. R. Bamberger’s critique of the emerging Beis Yaakov was based on canonical texts. While R. Winkler and Ehrenreich agree that there were halachic problems with changes in women’s education, these changes were necessary in troubling times. The rudimentary nature of the curriculum was sufficient to satisfy the spirit of Halacha if not always the letter.

Torat Yeruh.am: between the wars While prominent decisors create policy, the writings of “regular” rabbis can show how these decisions are received by the larger halachic community. In this case, the author was neither a prominent rabbinic leader nor was his book widely distributed. Its importance lies in the author’s presentation of a normative view of the central stream of Eastern European h.aredi society. Yeruh.am Ciechanowicz originally published Torat Yeruh.am in Lomzhe in 1937 and reprinted it in the US in 1950.110 The author lost a large part of his family in the Holocaust, and only some of his children survived and

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

51

immigrated to the US before or after the war. He was a kollel student before the war and grew up in the yeshiva world of Poland. The trauma of the Holocaust led to a change in his previous value system. Since Nazi Germany made no distinction between different groups of Jews, he was distressed by the lack of unity in Jewish society among those holding opposing political and religious views.111 The book rarely discusses values, however, and most sections clarify Halacha with no apparent connection to contemporary issues. The question of education for girls opens the book in each of the two editions,112 asking whether a woman is obligated to learn Torah, and if not, whether she is allowed to learn. The author answers the first question simply: the Talmud (Kiddushin 29b) exempts women from learning Torah. From the ruling of the Shulh.an Arukh, Orah. H . ayyim 47, however, a woman is exempt but not forbidden, since the Shulh.an Arukh permits a woman to recite the blessings on the Torah. This accords with Rabbeinu Tam, who permits a woman to recite a blessing on something she is exempt from doing. Regarding this leniency, R. Ciechanowicz recalls that one who is exempt from something yet does it is called a hedyot (simpleton), and according to the Shitah Mekubez.et in Bava Kama 87a, a hedyot is someone who does something not required of him, for instance, someone who recites a blessing on a borrowed prayer shawl. This explanation supports the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, who allows women to recite blessings on time-bound commandments, but what of Maimonides who forbids it? And how can women be permitted to recite a blessing when tractate Sotah says study by women is licentiousness and the Jerusalem Talmud warns that it is better to burn words of Torah rather than pass them on to women? According to biblical law, Ciechanowicz explains, women are exempt, but because rabbinic law follows Ben Azai, studying the Written Torah is permitted. This conclusion also occurs in the Mishnah in tractate Nedarim and from R. Isserles, who says that women need to learn the laws relevant to them. Yet if this is the case, why does Maimonides write that women are permitted to learn the Written Torah ex post facto, but should not be taught ab initio? One should distinguish, he writes, between learning that requires in-depth study and study of the halachic rulings as explained by the Taz and the author of Sefer H . asidim. Torah study by women is also secondary to enabling the study of Torah by husbands or sons. While the Mishnah in Sotah testifies to woman’s inherently weak understanding, there are exceptions: … This is a clear indication that if a woman immerses herself in Torah study she has a more acute perception, and of course she is permitted and surely this woman will not be ruined by the study of Torah. I assert my claim by carefully examining the words of R. Eli’ezer, who says that anyone who teaches his daughter Torah teaches her tiflut, he is careful to say that “anyone who teaches,” and not every woman who learns, meaning that Rabbi Eli’ezer refers to a woman who does not

52

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

aspire to learn Torah but her father wants to teach her, this is the woman that R. Eli’ezer fears will learn licentiousness and sneakiness, but if the woman, she herself, aspires to learn Torah on her own, we see this as one more positive attribute of her knowledge, and we should not be concerned.113 A woman who proves her desire to learn Torah and who learns on her own does not fall under the category of a “regular” woman and one may study with her, though women as a class are still barred from Torah study. His a fortiori proof comes from the Talmud, Ketubot 28b, where a slave is not allowed to learn Torah but there is no problem if he learns on his own and can read biblical verses.114 Deborah the prophetess, who certainly learned Torah, was indisputably not an ordinary woman. A text of this type, written no later than the 1930’s, reflects a common stance in Eastern European Orthodoxy, and perhaps the central position among the Orthodox community in that period that saw the necessity of education for girls. This need brought a revision of the halachic position but only on the most minimal level, with an acknowledgment of the ex post facto nature of the change. In its treatment of individual women with special abilities who are excluded from the Mishnah’s warning, there is a significant shift in values. As in the opinion of Rabbi Samuel Archivolti of Padua in the sixteenth century, there is recognition of the existence of capable women with proven intellectual abilities. This forced, on one level or another, the formation of a halachic position regarding their status.

Responsa Zkan Aharon: a leading decisor of the interwar period Thanks to his book of responsa, the Zkan Aharon, Rabbi Aharon Volkin was an influential decisor. This work played a seminal role in the formation of halachic rulings in Eastern Europe in the first half of the twentieth century. His ruling on women’s education legitimizing Beis Yaakov thus carries a special weight.115 R. Volkin was the rabbi of the congregation of Pinsk-Karlin, the center of a large h.asidic group. Born into a rabbinic family in 1865 in Shomiatz in White Russia, he was a graduate of the Volozhin yeshiva, where he was especially influenced by the Netziv.116 He was married to the sister of Rabbi Zalman Soroz.kin, a leader of the h.aredi community in pre-state Israel. Later, he was part of the kollel headed by Rabbi Isaac Elhanan Spector of Kovno. He served as rabbi of the congregations of Grozd Shad in the province of Kovno.117 In 1912 he was appointed rabbi of Amz.islav, and also took part in the foundation of Agudat Yisrael at the conference in Katovits. In 1914 he was sent by Agudat Yisrael along with Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer to establish Agudat Yisrael institutions in the US. In this context, he suggested incorporating English language studies in the yeshivas of Russia so their graduates could serve as rabbis in American congregations.118

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

53

During the Soviet era he fought the Yevsektsiya, the Jewish section of the Communist Party. After his arrest by the Soviet leadership he was jailed for six months, and then became the rabbi of Pinsk in Poland. R. Volkin wrote a series of books including commentary on the Talmud, H . oshen Mishpat, Sefer Yeraim and homilies. During the Nazi occupation he was murdered along with most members of his congregation.119 In response to a question sent to him by another rabbi, R. Volkin addressed the legitimacy of the Beis Yaakov institutions and expressed his reservations. His response was written after the Beis Yaakov institutions had already become a part of Eastern European Orthodox Jewish society for a decade. The responsum was written in December 1938 to Rabbi Baruch Halberstam, rabbi of the Dzalikov community. The question was whether it was permitted to reassign funds donated for educational institutions to Beis Yaakov. R. Volkin says that it is not possible that the great rabbis of the generation, who support the institutions of Beis Yaakov, did not know that one should not teach a woman Torah. He writes that one can interpret the dispute in tractate Sotah as a dispute about the Written Torah only as far as the Oral Torah is concerned, since all of the Tannaim prohibit it. In doing so Volkin chooses to interpret the view of Maimonides as saying that the Halacha accords with Ben Azai, but from the start one should rule strictly according to R. Eli’ezer. In practice he adopts the standard interpretation, i.e. that the dispute is about the oral laws. But if this is the case, why does Maimonides prohibit it from the outset? R. Volkin’s explanation is taken from the Bah., which explains that in the Hakhel narrative, the rabbis distinguished between men and women with the women coming only to listen. Here he wishes to accept the wording of the Tur, which most people see as a scribal error since women are permitted only to listen, and therefore the Tur’s version is correct in that the main part of the prohibition is the Written Torah. In other words, the passage refers to learning out of a book as opposed to listening to an oral presentation. According to his view of the appropriate learning method in Beis Yaakov institutions, these institutions diverge from learning merely the Written Torah and add study of Prophets, writings and mishnaic passages. He completely rejects this curriculum in light of the passage in the Jerusalem Talmud about burning words of Torah rather than passing them on to women, and the adjudication of the Maharil about women studying only through the tradition from mothers to their daughters. The second half of the response deals with an explanation for this divergence. He opens with his intentions: I have again looked, and one cannot say about our rabbis and teachers, the great ones of the generation, all of whom acted with such holiness and sacrifice, that this will be seen as forbidden, being that we have drunk from the waters of salvation, that thousands of souls of daughters of Israel have been saved by these schools, and we will cast aspersions? God

54

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

forbid we should consider this, and we must justify the righteous ones who acted according to the Torah, and I will fulfill this obligation, because these schools have two things in their favor: (a) learning Torah (b) and this is the main thing, that the spirit of Judaism abides there: all of the educational programs and arrangements are done with pure and holy intent, to educate the girls in the spirit of the Torah and tradition and to get them used to practical miz.vah observance, and protect them from sin.120 R. Volkin describes the central Beis Yaakov curriculum as permissible activity, i.e. learning about the commandments to which women are obligated. This study, he says, does not have less value than Torah study by a non-Jew who wishes to convert. As an aside, he also offers a novel interpretation: “ … this prohibition of teaching Torah to women is not a biblical prohibition, but the sages only suggested it as a recommendation.” Except in the responsa of Rabbi Judah Asad and as a peripheral point in a few Torah articles in minor platforms, this notion, for obvious reasons, hardly appears among decisors. From the passage in tractate Shabbat that describes Hillel, who learned Torah with a non-Jew who wished to convert, R. Volkin finds a source for permitting learning the essence of the laws with women. This accords with the Rabbi Shmuel Idels (“the Maharsha”),121 who asks how Hillel could learn with a non-Jew who was forbidden to learn Torah. R. Idels answers that the non-Jew is permitted to study Torah since the intent is to turn him into a Jew. At first glance, this exegetical approach would limit the ability of the woman to learn. R. Volkin explains that the conversion process is identical for males and females, both of whom need to be taught the commandments expected of them. In the case of a female convert two things could prohibit her from Torah study – she is a woman, and a non-Jew. Since despite these two prohibitions the rabbis allow her to study, one may assume that there is no prohibition against teaching commandments she is required to keep and which would apply to any Jewish woman. It is a similar strategy to that of R. Nathanson, who uses a slave with a lesser status than a Jewish woman in the same type of a fortiori argument. R. Volkin then relates this discussion to Jewish society at large, providing a broad justification both for expanding Jewish studies to meet parental demands and reducing the risk of students leaving the system’s institutions for heretical ones. Girls will leave the school, he fears, if they do not study a broad curriculum. Even if in an ideal world these secular or Jewish studies would not be taught to women, this generation of female students will nevertheless raise children committed to Torah and miz.vot. One may also violate the Sabbath, he argues, in order to save someone from becoming an apostate, because saving a life also constitutes saving a spiritual life, and physical death

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

55

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

is on the same plane as spiritual death.122 He even wishes that educational institutions for boys could be as organized and orderly as those of the Beis Yaakov system. He concludes that it is possible and fitting to donate funds to Beis Yaakov institutions, which were designed from the start as institutions for learning Torah. A prominent decisor, R. Volkin supported Beis Yakkov since it was also endorsed by leading rabbis. The curriculum must be rudimentary and not include studying from books but rather verbal instruction. In the face of the challenges of modernity, there is no other viable option.

Rabbi Ephraim Biliz.er: support for Beis Yaakov from Hungarian Orthodoxy The tension between traditional interpretation of canonical texts and the growth of Beis Yaakov generated considerable discourse about women and Torah. Many rabbis portrayed Beis Yaakov as an ad hoc solution that in a perfect world would not have been necessary. One strategy to resolve this tension was to reinterpret the normative status of R. Eli’ezer’s position against women’s Torah study: it was not a prohibition but merely good advice. The last rabbi of the community of Betlen in Transylvania,123 Rabbi Ephraim Biliz.er was also a prolific author, but his manuscripts were destroyed in the Holocaust. Only a portion of his books survived and were subsequently published by his son. They included notes on Sefer H . asidim, responsa, novellae on the Shas, and correspondence.124 He is cited a number of times in contemporary responsa.125 Biliz.er was asked whether there was any tiflut in learning the Pentateuch in Beis Yaakov institutions.126 The view of R. Eli’ezer in the Talmud is unclear, he writes, and therefore the prohibition on learning Torah by women is equally unclear. The main concern, however, is learning the Oral Torah. Many women were learned in Jewish texts, and he mentions a number of women like those under the entry rabbanit in R. H . ayyim Joseph David Azulai’s Shem Hagedolim. The main point for Biliz.er is that Maimonides and the Shulh.an Arukh both use the wording, “the sages said.” He asks why in other contexts they do not mention that the Halacha is according to “the words of the sages.” He thus concludes that this is not a Halacha, but rather: “It seems that they did not rule thus, they are only quoting from books in which the sages said as such.” He also mentions the opinion of R. Judah Asad suggesting the entire discussion in the Mishnah was mere advice rather than a halachic ruling, and also writes that he heard that the H . afez. H . ayyim published a pamphlet on the matter that he had not seen for himself. This response was written by a rabbi active in the non-h.asidic Hungarian world. His approach differs from that of h.asidic Hungarians in the Carpathian region and shows that even in the center of Hungarian groups like Satmar the existence of Beis Yaakov had become a fact of life.

56

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Conclusion Rabbinical texts reflect an upheaval that began in Eastern European Jewish society and led to increased enlightenment and secularization. Especially strong among Jewish women, this alarmed many who held to the classic understanding of the Jewish woman as the anchor of the Jewish home. Women who became secular or abandoned the faith altogether caused more concern than men. Still, change in education for women did not come at the initiative of the rabbinic leadership. Rather it grew out of the initiative of an innovator who acted with only latent approval, after the fact. The discussions of R. Nathanson and Soloveitchik, the rabbinic congress in Cracow, and the exchange of letters in the journal Vayalket Yosef present a scenario in which Jewish women are in serious danger of becoming secularized and assimilated. At the same time, a genuine tension exists between these social realities and conventional halachic interpretations. This tension explains why new educational institutions did not come about at the instigation of the rabbinical establishment, but by grassroots activists from Poland and the German Agudat Yisrael. After the fact, these institutions were given legitimacy by rabbinic leaders who still saw them an ad hoc solution. The curriculum they advocated was very different than that of yeshivas: nothing more than basic study of the Written Torah alongside practical application of Halacha and the basic tenets of Judaism. Woman’s education is a means to an end, not an end in itself like men’s Torah study. By the same token, the “woman’s canon” is radically different from that of Jewish men. It is based on biblical narrative and halachic manuals designed to help a woman function in traditional gender roles, just enough to strengthen a Jewish identity able to stand against modern values.

Notes 1 On the role of women in Enlightenment literature see: Tova Cohen, Ah.at Ahuvah Veah.at Snuah: Bein Mez.iut Ledimyon Bete’urey Haishah Hayehudiah Besifrut Hahaskalah (Jerusalem: Magness, 2002); Iris Porush, Nashim Korot: Yitrona shel Hashuliyut Beh.evrah Hayehudit Bemizrah. Eyropah (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2001); Shmuel Feiner, “Haishah Hayehudiah Hamodernit: Mikre Mivh.an Beyah.asei Haskala Umoderna,” Z.ion 58 (1993), 499–553. 2 Porush, Nashim Korot, 78. Mordekhai Zalkin remarks on her historical description and conclusions in Book Review: Reading Women: The Benefit of Marginality in Nineteenth-Century Eastern European Jewish Society, Gal-Ed 19 (2004), 78–87. 3 Zalkin, Review of Porush, 79–81. 4 Zalkin, Review of Porush, 82–83. 5 See Sabina Levin, Prakim Betoldot Hah.inukh Hayehudi Bepolin Bame’ah Hateshaesre Vereshit Hame’ah Haesrim (Tel Aviv: Hamakhon Leh.eker Hatfuz.ot, 1997), 37–40. These schools taught the Polish language and some history and geography as opposed to extensive secular studies taught to boys, 58. 6 Rachel Manekin, “Mashehu H . adash Legamrei – Hitpath.uto shel Ra’ayon Hah.inukh Hadati Lebanot Ba’et Hah.adashah,” Masechet 2 (2004), 64. 7 Rachel Manekin, “Mashehu H . adash Legamrei,” 64–66.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

57

8 Tamar Shekhter, “Dyokanah shel Ishah Maskilit Begaliz.iyah,” unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 1997, 77–84. 9 Freeze, Marriage and Divorce, 192. Between 1856 and 1868, 125 educational institutions for women opened in Russia with 10,000 students. Some students were supported by rich Jews. 10 Freeze, Marriage and Divorce, 193. 11 Hyman, Haishah Hayehudiyah Besvakh Hakidmah – Mekomah Veyiz.uga Ba’et Hah.adashah (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1997), 50. 12 Shaul Stampfer, “Gender Differentiation and Education of the Jewish Woman in nineteenth century Eastern Europe,” Polin 7 (1992), 63–87. 13 The Russian establishment objected to the opening of h.adarim for girls, perhaps also yielding to Jewish concerns from the end of the nineteenth century. Abraham Greenbaum, “H . eder Habanot Ubanot Beh.eder Habanim Bemizrah. Eyropah Lifnei Milh.emet Haolam Harishona,” in H . inukh Vehistoryah—Heksherim Tarbutiyim Upolitiyim, Imanuel Etkes and Rivkah Feldh.ai, eds (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1999), 298. Greenbaum, 302, a Russian survey in 1912 found many mixed-gender h.adarim on a low academic level with short periods of study. In Poland, eight percent of the students were female, in Russia, fourteen percent. 14 Stampfer, “Gender Differentiation,” 64–65. 15 Stampfer, “Gender Differentiation,” 66. 16 Stampfer, “Gender Differentiation,” 66–68. A Polish government official involved in establishing a government system for Jewish education wrote in 1818 that education, a prime concern among Jewish parents, was far better among Jews than Poles. Even the very poorest girls knew how to read. Levin, Prakim Betoldot Hah.inuch Hayehudi Bepolin Bame’a Hatsha-esre Vereshit Hame’a Haesrim, 24. 17 For one account of many, see Paula Hyman, Haishah Hayehudiyah Besvakh Hakidmah, 53. 18 Hyman, Haishah Hayehudiyah Besvakh Hakidmah, 50. 19 For conversion of Jewish women to Christianity see: Rachel Manekin, “The Lost Generation: Education and Female Conversion in fin de siècle Krakow,” Polin 18 (2006), 189–220. 20 Manekin, “Bita shel Tehila U’Michilena Aratin”; Eliyana Adler, “Women’s Education in the Russian Jewish Press,” Polin 18 (2006), 121–32. 21 Adler, “Russian Jewish Press,” 122. 22 Adler, “Russian Jewish Press,” 123. 23 Adler, “Russian Jewish Press,” 124. 24 Adler, “Russian Jewish Press,” 126–28. 25 Manekin, “Mashehu H . adash,” 69–72. 26 Manekin, “Mashehu H . adash,” 73–75. 27 Judah Slotzky, Ha’itonut Hayehudit-Russit Bame’ah Hatsh’a-esre (Tel Aviv: Mosad Biyalik, 1971), 262. 28 Judah Slotzky, Haitonut Hayehudit-Russit Bame’ah Haesrim (1900–1918) (Tel Aviv: Hamakhon Leh.eker Hatefuz.ut, 1978), 121. 29 One of the early attempts was described by Shmuel Feiner, “Programot H . evratiyot Ve’ide’alim H . evratiyim Bebeit Hasefer ‘H . inukh Ne’arim’ Beberlin 1778–1825,” in H . inukh Vehistoryah, 247–48. For the influence of the Berlin Enlightenment on the secularization of men and women see the text in note 27. On the strength of the assimilation process of German Jews see: Shulamit Volkov, “Yehudei Germanyah bame’ah Hatsha’a-esre: Sha’aftanut, Haz.lah.a, Tmi’ah,” in Hitbulelut Vetmi’ah – Hemshekhiyut Vetmura Betarbut Ha’amim Ubeyisrael, Menachem Shteren, Joseph Kaplan, eds (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar 1989), 173–88. 30 Mordechai Breuer, Eda Vedyokanah: Ortodoxyah Yehudit Baraykh Hagermani 1871–1918 (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar 1990), 114–91. For more on Jewish

58

31

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

32 33 34

35

36 37 38

39 40 41

42 43 44 45

46 47

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy education in Germany, see Dov Rappel, “Hah.inukh Hayehudi Begermanyah Bame’a Hatsha-Esre Ba’aspaklaryah shel Sifrei Halimud,” in Sefer Aviad: Kovez. Ma’amarim Umeh.karim Lezikhro shel Ishayaho Wolfsberg-Aviad Z”l, Yiz.h.ak Refa’el ed. (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1986), 305–16. Breuer, Eda Vedyokana, 115–17. Shlomo Chertok, “Hayah.as Lamodernah Beparshanuto shel Harash”r Hirsh Latorah,” unpub. Ph.D diss., Ben Gurion University, 2005, 65–69. Shimshon Refael Hirsch, H . orev (Bnei Brak, 1965), 381–93. Shimshon Refael Hirsch, Sidur Tefilot Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1992), 70. For a similar response of Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer see: David Ellenson and Elissa Ben-Naim, “German Orthodox Rabbinical Writings on the Jewish Textual Education of Women: The Views of Rabbi Samson Rephael Hirsh and Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer,” in Gender and Jewish History, Marrion Kaplan, Deborah Dash Moore, eds. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011), 158–69. For more on the Tarbut educational systems see the account of one teacher from Moriah: Noah. Pni’el, Prakim Betoldot Hah.inukh Haivri (Tel Aviv: Eked 1981); Menah.em Galerter, Hagimnasyah Haivrit Tarbut Berubena (Jerusalem: Alfa, 1973). For religious-Zionist education in Poland between the wars see Dov Avron, H . inukh Bema’avako – Lidmuto shel Hah.inukh Hayehudi Hadati-Leumi Bepolin Bein Shtei Milh.amot Haolam (Jerusalem: Alfa, 1988). Leah Alexandrov, “Toldot Hagimnasyot Haivriyot Bekovna Bein Shtei Milh.amot Haolam 1918–40,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 1983. Alexandrov, “Toldot Hagimnasyot,” 208–9. Mordekhai Zalkin, “‘Sheyihiye Kulo Ivri’: Reshet H . inukh Yavneh Belita Bein ‘H . inukh H . aredi’ Le’H . inukh Ivri,” in Zkhor Davar Le’avdekha: Asefat Ma’amarim Lezekher Dov Rapel, Shmuel Glick ed. (Jerusalem: Mikhlelet Lipshitz, 2007), 121–43. Greenbaum, “H . eder Habanot Ubanot Beh.eder Habanim Bemizrah. Eyropa Lifney Milh.emet Ha’olam Harishonah,” 297–99. Rachel Manekin, “Mashehu H . adash,” 80. Yossef Fund, Perud O Hishtatfut – Agudat Yisrael Mul Haz.iyonut Umedinat Yisrael, (Jerusalem: Magness, 1999), 15–17. He notes that strengthening the Zionist educational institutions, especially the Eastern European “Tarbut” system, led to the Katoviz. conference, where it was decided to establish Agudat Yisrael. Pearl Benish, Carry Me in Your Heart: The Life and Legacy of Sarah Schenirer (Jerusalem: Feldheim, 2003). See also Joel Schwartz, Mahapekhat H . inukh Habanot Bedorenu (Jerusalem: Hamosad Leidud Limud Hatorah, 1998). Deborah Weissman, “‘Bais Ya’akov’ as an Innovation in Jewish Women’s Education: A Contribution to the Study of Education and Social Change,” Studies in Jewish Education 7 (1995), 282. Yisrael Meir Hacohen, Likutei Halakhot, vol. 3 (Jerusalem 2003), 40. Brown agrees that this relates to an essentially conservative position. See Benjamin Brown, “Erekh Talmud Torah Bemishnat Hah.afez. H . ayyim Upsikato Be’inyan Talmud Torah Lenashim” Dinei Yisrael 24 (2007), 114. Brown also maintains that the H . afez. H . ayim sees women’s Torah study equal to men’s, but Brown ignores the rabbinic view that saw women’s Torah study solely as preparation for a miz.vah, not as study with intrinsic value. The H . afez. H . ayyim saw women’s Torah study as a factor preventing infiltration of foreign influences, but did not encourage it as an independent religious value. Menah.em Friedman, “Haishah Hah.aredit,” in Eshnav Leh.ayehen shel Nashim Beh.avarot Yehudiyot, Yael Atzmon ed. (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar 1995), 279. Deborah Weissman, “H . inukh Banot Datiyot Beyerushalyim Bitkufat Hashilton Habriti,” in H . inukh Dati Venoa’ar Dati – Dilemot Umetah.im, Mordecai Bar-Lev,

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

48 49 50 51

52 53

54 55 56

57 58 59 60 61 62 63

64

65 66

59

ed. (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1992), 9–29. For another examination of the relationship between tradition and modernity in the Beis Yaakov system: see H . ayah Dekel, “H . inukh Dati Bein Masortiyut Lemodernah,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 1996. Weissman, “‘Bais Ya’akov’ As an Innovation,” 297. Friedman, “Haishah Hah.aredit,” 279. Moses Goldstein, Tikun Olam (Monkatch: 1936), 140. Margalit Shilo, “Aliyah La’arez. Keprishut Nashit—Almanot Bayishuv Hayashan Beyerushalayim Bame’ah Hathsha-esre,” in Bein Masoret Leh.idush—Meh.karim Beyahadut, Z.iyonut Umedinat Yisrael, Eliezer Don-Yih.ye ed. (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2005), 15–36. Deborah Weissman, “H . inukh Banot Datiyot Beyerushalayim Bitkufat Hamandat Habriti: Hitmasdutan Vehitgabshutan shel H . amesh Ideologyot H . inukhiyot,” (unpub. PhD dissertation, Hebrew University, 1994), 37. Sewing skills had top priority, with reading and writing far behind. The school was open only intermittently until 1868, when it received a grant from the British Rothschilds, hence to be known as Evelina de Rothschild. Given the opposition by the Ashkenazi rabbinic establishment, most of its students were Sephardic. Margalit Shilo, Princess or Prisoner? Jewish Women in Jerusalem 1840–1914 (Boston: Brandeis University Press, 2005), 158–75. See also Shilo, “H . inukh Ne’arot Ke’emz.aei Le’iz.uv H . evrah H . adashah: Hamikre shel Beit-Hasefer Evelina De-Rotshild,” in Haivriyot Hah.adashot – Nashim Bayishuv Ubaz.iyunut Brei Hamigdar, Margalit Shilo ed. (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Z.vi, 2002), 229–47. Shilo, Princess or Prisoner?, 152–57. Shilo, Princess or Prisoner?, 158–62. Shilo, Princess or Prisoner?, 166–77. The appointment was via ‘Agudat Ah.im. She wished to give the girls of Jerusalem tools to contend with the modern world, in the same way her students who left Jerusalem to become nannies for Jewish families in Europe had become successful. She was a miz.vah-observant woman and this was the nature of her school. Weissman, “H . inukh Banot Datiyot Beyerushalayim,” 40–46. Shilo, Princess or Prisoner?, 207–9. A prominent activist in the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem. Known as a radical figure, he objected to trimming beards, wigs, hospital births, and even bathtubs in private homes. Shilo, Princess or Prisoner?, 75. Rephael Schneller, “Z.mih.ato Vehitpath.oto shel H . inukh Habanot Ba’edah H . aredit,” in Mikhtam Ledavid—Sefer Zikaron Larav David Okes, Itzchak Gilat et al., eds. (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1978), 331–36. Schneller, “Z.mih.ato Vehitpath.oto,” 329. Schneller, “Z.mih.ato Vehitpath.oto,” 331–33. Schneller, “Z.mih.ato Vehitpath.oto,” 337. The loss of girls to the new Beis Yaakov schools with broader Jewish and general studies led immigrants from Englishspeaking countries in the Edah H . aredit to establish the Bnot Rachel institutions, which expanded the curriculum. Sima Zalz.berg, “Olaman shel Neshot H . asidut Toldot Aharon: Ma’amadan Kepratim Ukekvuz.ah,” unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2005, 136–37. For a complete description of the h.aredi educational structure in Israel see: Varda Shiffer, Ma’arekhet Hah.inukh Hah.aredi Beyisrael—Takz.iv, Pikuah., Bakara (Jerusalem: Makhon Floreshaymer Lemh.kerei Mediniyut, 1998). ChaeRan Freeze and Paula Hyman, “Introduction: A Historiographical Survey,” Polin 18 (2006), 6–13. Barukh Epstein, Makor Barukh, vol. 3 (n.p.: 1954) 582–90; Meir Bar-Ilan, Mivoloz’in ‘ad Yerushalayim, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (Tel Aviv: n.p., 1971), 268–73.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

60

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

67 Arukh Hashulh.an, YD 246:19. 68 Moshe Rosman, “The History of Jewish Women in Early Modern Poland: An Assessment,” Polin 18 (2006), 25–56; Simh.a Fishbane, “In Any Case There Are No Sinful Thoughts: The Role And Status Of Women In Jewish Law As Expressed in The Arukh Hashulhan,” Judaism 42 (1993), 492–503. 69 M. Leiter, “Hameh.aber Shut ‘Sho’el u-Meishiv’ (Kavim Lidmuto),” Hadarom 29 (1969), 146–70 and also a short monograph by Avraham Bromberg who edited a series of monographs on rabbinic personalities. He describes Nathanson’s activities in the Lvov congregation, which was engaged in a struggle between the Maskhilim and the h.aredim. R. Nathanson supported the h.aredi faction and objected to the changes, but Bromberg sees him as one who knew how to live in peace with modernity. Avraham Bromberg, Migdolei Hatorah Vehah.asidut, vol. 17 (Jerusalem: Hamachon Leh.asidut, 1960). 70 Joseph Saul Nathanson, Sho’el U’meishiv, 4th ed. (New York: 1954), section 41. 71 Bromberg, Mgdolei Hatorah Vehah.asidut, Ch. 4. 72 H . ayyim Gertner, “‘Maz.ahs Mashine:’ Hapulmus Hahilkhati Kekli Lehagdarat Zehut Ortodoxit,” in Ortodoxyah Yehudit: hebet.im h.adashim, Yosef´ Salmon, Avi’ezer Ravitski and Adam Ferziger, eds (Jerusalem: Magness, 2006), 396–425. 73 Bromberg, Mgdoley Hatorah Vehah.asidut, Ch. 7. 74 The Mishnah in tractate H . ulin 1:1 determines that all are approved for slaughter, including women. At later stages women were excluded. Charles Duschinsky, “May a Woman Act as Shoheteth?,” Orient and Occident, Bruno Schindler et al. eds., (London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1936), 96–106. 75 E.g. Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil, Sefer Miz.vot Katan, 197; Tur, Yore De’ah 1. 76 Beit Yosef, Yore De’ah 1 s.v. katuv. 77 TB, Ketubot 28b. 78 The Shitah Mekubetzet is a collection of remarks by the Rishonim on a few Talmudic tractates, edited by Rabbi Bez.alel Ashkenazi of Cairo in the sixteenth century. 79 Gertner, “Maz.ahs Mashine,” 396–400. 80 H . ayyim Karlinski, Harishon Leshoshlet Brisk (Jerusalem: Mekhon Yerushalayim, 1984), 111–54. 81 Karlinski, Harishon Leshoshlet Brisk, 157–295. 82 Karlinski, Harishon Leshoshlet Brisk, 166–69, 322–53, 368–90. 83 Shelomoh Joseph Zevin, Ishim Veshitot (Jerusalem: Beit Hillel, 1979), 41–85. For description using legal tools see: Norman Solomon, “Anomaly and Theory in the Analytic School,” The Jewish Law Annual 6 (1987), 126–47; “Definition and Classification in the Work of the Lithuanian Halakhists,” Dinei Israel 6 (1975), LXIII – CIII; “Concepts of ze nehene in Analytical Jewish School,” Law Annual 3 (1980), 49–62; “H . illuk and Hakirah,” Dine Israel 4 (1973), LXIX – CVI. These articles were collected into a book with additions by Solomon: The Analytic Movement – Hayyim Soloveitchik and His Circle (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). A similar type of description was provided by Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, one of the distinguished proponents of this approach, in his book Halakhic Man, trans. Lawrence Kaplan (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1979). See also Elyakim Krumbein, “Mereb H . aim Mebrisk Vehagryd Soloveichik Ve’ad Sheurei Harav Aharon Lichtenstein – Al Gilgula shel Masoret Halimud,” Netuim 9 (2002), 51–94. 84 Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, Beit Halevi (Vilna: 1863), Section 6. 85 Ze’ev Soloveitchik, H . idushei Hagryz al Harambam (Jerusalem 1998), Berakhot 11:16. 86 Rachel Manekin, “Haortodoxya Bekrakov Al saf Hame’ah Haesrim,” in Kraka, Kazimeij, Cracow, Elh.anan Reiner ed. (Tel Aviv: Hamakhon Leh.eker Hatfuz.ot, 2001), 173–79. Sources for developments at the congress include reports in Jewish

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

87 88 89 90 91

92 93 94 95

96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115

61

newspapers and descriptions published by the initiator of the congress, Karni Re’em. A description of the conference, Mekiz. Nirdamim, was edited by Jacob Gutman. Gutman was the student of Rabbi Landa, rabbi of Navagvar (Nowy Dwor), who was also known as the Rebbe of Zavriz.e. In it, Gutman describes the Congress from his point of view, especially in contrast to the reports of his rival, the rabbi of Poltava, Rabbi Elijah Akiva Rabinovich. Rabinovich edited the Orthodox Jewish newspaper Peles, in which the Congress reports were published. Aaron Mendel HaCohen, Yad Re’em (Tel Aviv: 1960), 9. Menachem Mendel Landau, Mekiz. Nirdamim (Pyuterkuv: 1904), 51. Landau, Mekiz. Nirdamim, 52. Landau, Mekiz. Nirdamim, 52. Landau, Mekiz. Nirdamim, 53–54. On prostitution among Jewish women in Eastern Europe and its representation in literature, see Gur Elroi, “Hasah.ar Benashim Bah.evrah Hayehudit Bereshit Hame’ah Haesrim Vehishtakfuto Be’Emek Habakha’ shel Mendele Mokher Sforim,” Bikoret Uparshanut 40 (2008), 37–59; Neli Less, “Znut Vesah.ar Benashim Bah.evra Hayehudit Bereshit Hame’a Haesrim,” Kivunim 5 (2002), 214–25. Elroi, “Hasah.ar Benashim Bah.evrah Hayehudit,” 54. Elroi, “Hasah.ar Benashim Bah.evrah Hayehudit,” 55. On whether there is Torah study while thinking but not speaking, see Shulh.an Arukh, Orah. H . aim, 47:4. Elroi, “Hasah.ar Benashim Bah.evra Hayehudit,” 56. Shalom Leib Eizenbakh, Vayelaket Yosef, 8:14, section 145. A man by this name, a resident of Jerusalem, wrote two books, Be’er Yiz.h.ak al Seder Kodashim (Jerusalem: 1911). A different book that appeared to be written by Mordecai Kroyz, Techelet Mordecai al Seder Taharot (Jerusalem: 1904), was essentially written by Eizenbakh. H . ayyim Dov Grass, Vayelaket Yosef, 9:4, section 46. Joseph Grynvold, Vayelaket Yosef, 9:6, section 74. Shalom Leib Eizenbakh, Vayelaket Yosef, 9:7 section 84. H . ayyim Dov Grass, Vayelaket Yosef, 9:10, section 106. H . ayyim Dov Grass, Vayelaket Yosef, 9:13, section 148. H . ayyim Dov Grass, Vayelaket Yosef, 9:14, section 166. Ze’ev Leiter, Beit David (Jerusalem: 2000), section 99. Ze’ev Wolf Leit.er, Die Stellung der Frau im Talmud (Amsterdam: Joachimsthal’s Stoomdrukkerij, 1918). A few details about his life appear in the introduction to the photocopied version of the book published by the Jerusalem Institute in 1980, p. 15. Additional details were published by M. Leiter, “She’eri Hagaon Ze’ev Leiter,” Hadarom 40 (1975), 192–204. Ze’ev Leiter, Beit David (Jerusalem: 2000), section 99. Zekel Bamberger, “Halacha Lema’ase: She’elah Beinyan Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Oz.ar Hah.ayyim 4 (1928), 115–16. On the history of the Bamberger family see: Simh.a Bamberger, introduction, Zekher Simh.a (Frankfurt: 1925), no pagination. Michael Winkler, “Limud Torah Lenashim,” Oz.ar Hah.ayyim 5 (1929), 14–15. H . ayyim Ehrenreich, “Limud Torah Lenashim,” Oz.ar Hah.ayyim 5 (1929), 15–18. Ehrenreich, “Limud Torah Lenashim,” 18. Yeruh.am Ciechanowicz, Torat Yeruh.am (New York: 1950). Ciechanowicz, Torat Yeruh.am, vol. 2, 9. Ciechanowicz, Torat Yeruh.am, vol. 1, section 1. Ciechanowicz, Torat Yeruh.am, vol. 1, section 1. R. Nathanson conducts a similar discussion above, although he uses the issue in a slightly different way. Aharon Volkin, Zkan Aharon (New York: 1958), section 66.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

62

Women’s education in Eastern European Orthodoxy

116 His son Samuel Volkin put out an additional edition of Zkan Aharon and included a short biography. Volkin, Zkan Aharon, vol. 2, no pagination. 117 See the front matter in the collection of Volkin’s homilies. Metzah. Aharon, 2nd ed. (Piyeterkov: 1908). 118 Yith.ak Levin (ed.), Ele Ezkera – Osef Toldot Kedoshei 1940–1945, vol. 1 (New York: n.p., 1956), 56. 119 Volkin, introduction, Zkan Aharon, vol. 2, no pagination. 120 Zkan Aharon, section 66. 121 Rabbi Samuel Idels, a Talmud commentator who played a central role in the Talmudic world in the yeshivas of Eastern Europe until the Second World War. 122 The Rishonim differed on this issue. Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet, Shut Harashba, vol. 7, section 267, maintains that one could not desecrate the Sabbath to prevent conversion in that one does not sin in order to prevent another from sinning. The Tosafists (Shabbat 4a s.v. vechi omrim) argue that one can desecrate the Sabbath to prevent conversion, since one may override a lesser prohibition to prevent violations of greater significance. 123 Ephraim Biliz.er, Yad Ephraim, (Petah. Tikvah: 1970), 13. 124 Isaac Joseph Cohen, H . akhmei Transylvania, vol. 2, (Jerusalem: 1989), 266. In Romanian called Beclean and in Hungarian, Bethlen. In 1941, the Jews there numbered 944. The community was founded in the beginning of the eighteenth century, and its first rabbi was Samuel Ehrenfeld, author of H . atan Sofer. He served there from 1866–68. 125 Cohen, H . akhmei Transylvania, 20–21. 126 Biliz.er, Yad Ephraim, YD section 17.

3

Women’s education and the learners’ society

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

The primary h.aredi social narrative is the continuing trauma of tradition’s erosion by secular culture. Beginning with the Volozhin yeshiva in 1803, the modern talmudic school developed to stem this erosion,1 while other features of h.aredi society also build strong community boundaries. Menah.em Friedman identifies three key characteristics: (1) a commitment to Torah study, (2) stringent religious observance, i.e., maintaining the minutiae of observance in order to erect a bulwark against the secularization slowly invading traditional h.aredi life,2 and (3) anti-Zionism, i.e., rejection of the notion that Israel is a nation like all others.3 Noting further boundary markers such as distinctive dress and the Yiddish language, Friedman also emphasizes the historic roots of the consolidation of h.aredi society: the battle against Zionism, coupled with the rise of a new model of religious authority. The foundation of this protective edifice is Da’at Torah,4 a term that denotes the obligation to consult rabbinic leadership for decisions in matters with no apparent halachic connection, such as medical procedures or public policy. Resulting from a heady mixture of complete spiritual and intellectual formation from Torah, divine charisma, and the discernment of authority, rabbinic proclamations are to be followed even when devoid of precedence, as they bear a stamp of divine approval. The new leaders, most prominently “the H . azon Ish,” Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz, anchored h.aredi life to learning Torah at the cost of middle class comforts. This ethos fulfills Mishnah Avot 6:4: This is the way of [learning] the Torah: Eat a slice of bread in salt and a measure of water, sleep on the ground, and live a life of struggle with the Torah, and if you do this you will have happiness, and it will be good for you in this world and good for you in the world to come. A “society of learners”5 gathered to live out this ethos, where despite significant economic cost, most men find self-fulfillment through the study of

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

64

Women’s education in h.aredi society

Torah – a major distinction between h.aredi society in Eastern Europe and Israel. In Eastern Europe, Jewish women were a central part of the workforce, with men working alongside them, but their reasons for entering the workforce were primarily economic. This ran counter to contemporary bourgeois society, which saw the role of a woman in the home, caring for her family and children. Only later did a social narrative develop making women responsible for supporting the family so their husbands could learn Torah unencumbered by work.6 Rather than both men and women working to support the family, R. Karelitz encouraged a society that placed kollel students at its heart. Instead of earning a living, men who studied in kollel learned Torah on a daily basis. Stringent observance fostered by the kollelim further distanced the emerging religious community from family traditions.7 With no rabbinic intermediary, the community connected directly with halachic literature, viewing itself as an elite with greater halachic knowledge than their parents, further delegitimizing the previous generation. In Eastern Europe only men of exceptional talent devoted their entire lives to study,8 but now, all yeshiva students were expected to study further at a kollel. The degree of novelty that Friedman ascribes to this change must be modified, however, by the exit of the Jewish men from the workforce, not women entering it, for the sole reason they never left it.9

The new Beis Yaakov Beis Yaakov schools had a clear goal: creating a new kind of Jewish woman, one ready to live a life of poverty and to support a husband in full-time study. Such a radical change in gender roles required religious motivation, and this motivation, along with the need of the network’s institutions in Eastern Europe to inculcate a Jewish identity strong enough to dissociate from non-Jewish society, required study of Jewish texts. Jewish identity, anchored in a religious life centered on texts, could not escape this necessity. The history of the founding of Beis Yaakov in pre-state Israel has taken on special significance in the new social context emerging in the post-war era, which brought with it a new paradigm of the h.aredi woman. The structures and management styles in place at the beginning of the twentieth century in Palestine have become equally paradigmatic. Before the Second World War the h.aredi community under the British mandate was small and relatively unimportant compared to the rest of the Jewish world. Following the destruction of Jewish society in Eastern Europe, however, the h.aredi community in pre-state Israel became paradigmatic in the development of h.aredi society, even though in the h.aredi ethos, life in the Holy Land is a mere continuation of Jewish life in Eastern Europe.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

65

Most primary sources deal with the Beis Yaakov schools established in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in the 1920s.10 Small institutions opened in Tiberias and Safed as well.11 The struggle between the zealots and the German immigrant principal of Beis Yaakov was a significant factor in the split with Agudat Yisrael.12 Moves by the Agudat Yisrael Center in Germany to modernize the Beis Yaakov institutions in pre-state Israel, especially by posting teachers to the Holy Land, were met with stubborn resistance from the Old Yishuv and the Jerusalem Agudat Yisrael.13 Sending a woman Friedman only names as K. Nah.man to make changes in the Old Beis Yaakov caused a stir when in 1928 she suggested introducing the study of the Book of Psalms with Rashi and Mez.udot commentaries,14 along with Pirkei Avot with commentary by R. Obadiah of Bertinoro, the Kiz.ur Shulh.an Arukh in Hebrew (a book listing basic rulings about daily Jewish life), writing and math in Hebrew, and holding class parties.15 These fruitless attempts provoked sharp objections that even led to fistfights.16 Nah.man left Jerusalem and tried to introduce reforms into the Beis Yaakov institutions in Safed and later Tiberias. After failing there as well, she left Palestine. This zealot victory – with the approval of the head of the Ashkenazi community Rabbi Zonnenfeld and later Rabbi Dushinski – was short-lived. Change was halted in the Old Beis Yaakov, but after several years, immigrants from Poland and Germany demanded the opening of a “New Beis Yaakov” that also drew students away from the old institution.17 Benjamin Brown reports that in conversation, R. Karelitz once framed Maimonides’ position on Torah study for women as distinguishing a woman who wants to learn, in which case it would not harm her, and study by women who did not choose to learn.18 While it is perhaps unwise to read too much into a single oral testimony, if Brown is correct, a new h.aredi norm with Beis Yaakov at its center is being acknowledged.19 R. Karelitz characterizes feminine nature as gentle and vulnerable, and he accepts the representations of femininity in canonical sources as realistic.20 Given the new definition of gender roles within the Jewish family in the society of learners that he himself had created, this traditionalistic view was not absolute. The creation of the ideal h.aredi woman was, after all, the cornerstone of R. Karelitz’s plan,21 and that demanded considerable changes in women’s education. In practical terms, the society of learners also owes much to income from Beis Yaakov teaching positions,22 yet another factor in Beis Yaakov becoming indispensable to h.aredi life. Government funding of Beis Yaakov institutions provides many young h.aredi women with a regular salary. Convenient working hours eases the difficulties of childcare, and the schools offered a nurturing environment that accommodates the modesty restrictions of h.aredi society. R. Karelitz’s greatest ally in transforming h.aredi women into sole family providers was Rabbi Abraham Joseph Wolf, a German Jewish immigrant, who founded the Beis Yaakov Women’s Seminary in Bnei Brak. Through a new curriculum introducing limited Jewish studies, R. Wolf instilled the ethos

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

66

Women’s education in h.aredi society

of lifelong study for men into his female students. Women’s education was crucial in changing the domestic priorities of h.aredi women so that financial support of the family would fall on their shoulders alone. R. Wolf hardly fits the stereotype of German neo-Orthodoxy.23 His mother was the sister of R. Moshe Oyerbakh, one of the first activists in religious education in pre-state Israel, and she herself a teacher of Jewish studies to girls.24 Noting that Western cultures assume gender equality, Wolf writes that even if there were formal equality there would still only be a minority of women among doctors, inventors, and professors because a woman’s nature is essentially domestic.25 Women are destined to strengthen the Torah by managing the home, thus enabling their husbands and sons to learn.26 He frequently identifies the essential qualities of women – mercy, gentleness, and aversion to the public sphere – much the same way as R. Karelitz.27 In his eyes, the Beis Yaakov movement was merely an ad hoc solution to the spiritual decline of recent generations,28 not a revolution in gender roles or women’s education. Wolf ’s worldview found it necessary to limit Torah study among women because a woman’s purpose is not identical to a man’s. The difference is ontological, with neither carrying a negative or positive value compared to the other. Rather, the purpose of each is to become closer to the Creator by following separate paths. A woman’s path does not include Torah study, so there is no need for it. When a woman tries to diverge from this purpose, she denies her nature. Destined for disappointment, she will ultimately harm the Jewish home. The relationship of a man and woman is analogous to the model of Issachar and Zebulun, two brothers who in Midrash symbolize the relationship between a Torah scholar and one who financially supports the learning of another, with both sharing the reward for learning Torah. Thus it is hardly surprising that R. Wolf designed Beis Yaakov schools as a means to inculcate an understanding of a woman’s role as wife and breadwinner still shaping h.aredi woman today.29 For Wolf, tiflut is a natural concern of everyone who learns Torah. It is neither gender specific nor laden with fears of promiscuity but points to heretical views widespread in the modern era. While basic study would present Jewish law more or less as a monolithic whole, as the learner uncovers the complexity of Jewish law, a deeper study of Halacha is full of wonder and surprise. This is a crisis of understanding faced by any student of Torah. Men need to study despite this difficulty, but since women are exempt from Torah study there is no reason to expose them to such intellectual hardship.30 As the traditionally masculine role of breadwinner becomes feminine and the allegorical Zebulun a wife, tiflut expands to include men. Instead of gender or sexuality, tiflut focuses instead on the hostile world outside h.aredi boundaries. Despite this elasticity, however, Wolf ’s view of women is not revolutionary, as he merely expands the category “domestic” to include full financial support for the home.

Women’s education in h.aredi society

67

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Or Hameir (1941): debates in the nascent h.aredi community in Israel Rabbi Meir Shz.ranski Even as they were attempting to defend Orthodox women from secularization, Beis Yaakov schools faced criticism: early reactions ranged from opposition by zealous conservatives to apathy by most of their natural constituency. This tenuous discourse is recorded in Or Hameir, a mimeographed booklet containing responsa by rabbinic leaders in pre-state Israel clarifying the question of Torah study for women. Published in 1941 and edited by Rabbi Meir Shz.ranski,31 this small booklet aimed to bestow halachic legitimacy upon Beis Yaakov schools and achieve two goals: neutralize criticism and persuade parents to abandon their indifference to women’s education. R. Shz.ranski founded a Beis Yaakov school and seminary in Tel Aviv in 1936, and the school still bears his name today. While a biography has yet to be written, some information was published in a memorial booklet edited by his son, who became the principal of the Tel Aviv seminary. Shz.ranski was born in Zagrash in Poland,32 Though not a halachic decisor, he still chose to express his stance on the issue of education for girls in a halachic work. The booklet contains a letter of congratulation from Dr Pinh.as Cohen of London, head of the steering committee of Agudat Yisrael,33 and a letter of approbation by R. Uziel,34 the chief rabbi. R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel, the chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, also expressed support.35 Though R. Shz.ranski writes he does not wish to enter into a debate with the opponents of girls’ education, most of his essay is a debate with these same opponents. After citing the proof text opponents of Beis Yaakov so frequently repeat – “the words of Torah should be burned and not passed on to women” – he urges that the matter be examined in light of the current situation: The unpleasant situation in which the girls of Eretz Yisrael are educated today is well known. Most of the educational institutions – whether on the elementary or the high school level – do not provide traditional Torah knowledge for our daughters. Instead they distance them from their parents, from Jewish tradition, and from the entire Jewish nation. Family tragedies are daily occurrences in Jewish h.aredi households. The appalling moral decline that has taken hold of the younger generation of women is a direct result of the defective education by which our daughters were raised.36 Shz.ranski’s strong language describes the dangers modern education brings to the door of h.aredi society. He tells of h.aredi parents who send their daughters to modern schools, exposing them to “the poisonous mist of modernity.”37 Has h.aredi Judaism, he asks, done anything “to straighten the crooked”? In 1941 he writes:

68

Women’s education in h.aredi society

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The answer is decidedly negative: Nothing at all. (klum ume-um). Only a handful of faithful people began founding h.aredi schools for girls knows as Beis Yaakov here in the Holy Land, after this movement had outstanding success outside of the [Holy] land. And after the movement existed here for eight successful years, they recently began to attack the school and its principals with various complaints, without considering the bitter results of [their attack], therefore it is time once and for all to clarify the Halacha.38 In the Jubilee book for the Tel Aviv Beis Yaakov institutions in 1961, however: The answer is decidedly yes. Elementary schools, high schools for girls, seminaries for kindergarten teachers and for Beis Yaakov teachers and recently, the higher-level courses for training teachers in high schools and seminaries: “Beit Hamorah – Beis Yaakov.” However, only a small number of loyal people worked on the founding of Beis Yaakov in the land of Israel, after this movement succeeded outstandingly and after the movement of Beis Yaakov existed in the land of Israel for nearly thirty years and succeeded in a way that no other educational movement had succeeded before, these short-sighted people rose up as if jealousy and hate were guiding their judgment and said: Could it be?! Torah study for women? It is worth clarifying the Halacha.39 When he takes a halachic stance, there is no difference between the two articles. He bases his discussion on the Mishnah in tractate Sotah by which Maimonides, Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, the Tur and Shulh.an Arukh all rule that a woman who learnes Torah receives a reward but not the same as a man, since she is not commanded to do so. The distinction between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah derives from the Talmud in H . agiga on the Hakhel ceremony. Listening is defined as in-depth study and hearing as teaching understanding of the commandments and their implementation, which is permitted. He emphasizes the Mishnah in tractate Nedarim and the importance of teaching girls commandments to which they are obligated. “[E]ven within the Talmud,” he writes, “she is permitted to learn halachic rulings.” He thus permits the use of talmudic passages in girls’ lessons. There are exceptional women for whom learning is beneficial, Shz.ranski points out, for Maimonides says that “most” women take the words of Torah and turn them into foolishness, but “most” does not mean “all.” He then reviews a long list of female talmudic scholars throughout the generations.40 Comparing the Shz.ranski’s article in the book Or Hameir with a revised version published twenty years later reveals telling differences. In the Jubilee book of 1961, Shz.ranski’s revisions show that Beis Yaakov has become a foundation of h.aredi society, an indispensable component of women’s education emulated by h.aredi communities even if they officially created their own

Women’s education in h.aredi society

69

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

independent institutions. Education for girls, Shz.ranski notes, was not at the forefront of h.aredi public interest during the pre-state period. Consolidating h.aredi society required convincing parents, most of whom insisted on some combination of secular and Jewish studies, to send their children to Agudat Yisrael institutions.41 In response, Beis Yaakov institutions also opened in Tel Aviv. These institutions needed to be less conservative than their sister seminary in Bnei Brak headed by R. Wolf, and the curriculum in Tel Aviv indeed reflected a wide array of subjects.42 Rabbi Zalman Soroz.kin: ideological justification for changes in women’s education The need for a halachic rationale to legitimate – even to mandate – the Beis Yaakov institutions required innovative hermeneutical tools to portray them as an organic, non-controversial part of Orthodox life. This need also led Rabbi Zalman Soroz.kin to recast a homily into a halachic responsum. Soroz.kin’s seat on the Council of Torah Sages of the Agudat Yisrael and his position as decisor gave him a significant role in h.aredi leadership eventually overshadowed by R. Karelitz.43 Despite his activity as head of the Council of Torah Sages after the establishment of the State, he lacked influence himself.44 R. Soroz.kin’s responsum on Torah study for girls was originally written for Shz.ranski for publication in Or Hameir, where it was dated May 11, 1941,45 then republished with minor revisions in a book of responsa, Moznayim lamishpat, in 1965.46 The ultimate source of the responsum, however, was a book of Soroz.kin’s homilies in which two discuss the topic, more extensively number 17.47 In practice, the question of women’s Torah study is moot, Soroz.kin holds, since Beis Yaakov institutions do not teach Oral Torah at all, but rather the Written Torah, which is permitted. Even so, the historical situation has changed: In early days daughters of Israel behaved according to the Shulh.an Arukh and it was possible to teach them the whole Torah through daily living. There was no need to teach girls Torah from a book, but now because of our many sins it is impossible to teach girls Torah at home, because at home there is no recollection of many commandments and statutes. A daughter of Israel who comes from one of these homes to learn in a religious school is almost like a non-Jew who comes to convert and must be taught the Torah, so that she will know the path she must take.48 More homiletic than halachic, his discussion opens with an illustration from the Talmud: in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah, “no boy or girl, man or woman could be found who was not knowledgeable about the laws of purity and impurity” (TB Sanhedrin 94b). Hezekiah’s father Ahaz had

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

70

Women’s education in h.aredi society

encouraged the idol cult in Judah, Soroz.kin explains, and the situation deteriorated greatly during his reign. When Hezekiah became king and sought to fight idolatry, he was forced to teach the laws of the Torah to the whole community, including women. Soroz.kin concentrates on Genesis 12:8, which describes the establishment of Abraham’s camp. There is a difference between the written text and the traditional pronunciation of the word ohel, “tent.”According to the Midrash (Bereshit Rabah 39), the verse teaches that the tent of Sarah was established first. Soroz.kin explains that the tents of both Sarah and Abraham were used not only for a dwelling place, but to spread the word of the unity of God among the nations. Abraham worked among the men and Sarah among the women, yet why was Sarah’s tent set up before Abraham’s? Women have a natural inclination to believe, he answers, while men have a natural inclination for detailed learning. The institutions of Beis Yaakov should thus be established before Talmudei Torah (elementary schools) for boys, despite the common notion that men’s Torah study is more important.49 Soroz.kin condemns parents who do not address the education of their daughters and only give priority to their sons’ education. Some even send their sons to yeshiva and their girls to secular schools, leading the girls to scorn Jewish tradition. He colorfully describes women who attend synagogue twice a year and do not know how to pray. Many of them try to hide their Jewish heritage. The responsibility rests first and foremost with fathers who do not get involved in the education of their daughters:50 They do not teach the girls even to pray and make blessings, we establish so many groups to distribute Torah and oral teachings among men but send the women … to hell, to groups with a program … entirely different from what we have chosen for ourselves. We do not act like Moses, who asked Pharaoh for common worship of God (with our sons and with our daughters, etc. we will go, because for us it is a holy day unto God) but we act as Pharaoh who answered him: “No, let the men go now and worship God.”51 This responsum appeared in the early 1940s, when Beis Yaakov institutions in pre-state Israel were still at an early stage. To judge by Shz.ranski’s comments in Or Hameir, they had received a chilly welcome from several elements in the h.aredi world. There was genuine concern about Beis Yaakov institutions continuing in the style of leaders like R. Shz.ranski and R. Soroz.kin, who in their openness toward secular education take a different Orthodox approach than R. Karelitz. I cannot, however, agree with those scholars who view R. Soroz.kin as an influential revolutionary.52 They assign particular importance to his permitting women to learn Written Torah, thus establishing a halachic model of Torah study for women. Essentially a homily in masquerade, the responsum is simply not a significant halachic analysis capable of influencing later

Women’s education in h.aredi society

71

discourse. Despite a certain rhetorical flair, Soroz.kin instead speaks conservatively and asks to preserve Beis Yaakov institutions that had already enjoyed a good reputation for several decades and become a de facto part of the Orthodox establishment.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Rabbi Tuvia Yehuda Tavyomi: ideology and Halacha Almost two decades before he responded to Shz.ranski’s call for articles, R. Tuvia Yehuda Tavyomi had already written on the status of women in an essay published in his book Tal leyisrael entitled “What Do Women Merit?,” a phrase from tractate Sotah.53 Tavyomi’s essay pursues two rhetorical goals: to show that Orthodox women will be rewarded by being observant Jews and to counter the secularist argument that traditional Judaism discriminates against women. Born in 1882 in Sochoczin, Poland, Tavyomi studied in the yeshiva of the author of the Avnei Nezer, the Rebbe of Socachev. After leaving Poland he settled in Tel Aviv, where he published a series of books, including a collection of responsa.54 His publications often deal with the Torah’s responses to current events, addressing questions about the settlement of the land of Israel, education for secular professions, and the value of equality. He also contributed to more progressive Polish Orthodox periodicals whose writers were connected to German Orthodoxy and which dealt with the concerns of h.aredi Judaism with the Jewish Enlightenment.55 R. Tavyomi’s essays are frequently apologetic. Often drawing on his familiarity with history and science, he uses tools similar to those employed by German Orthodoxy in its interactions with modernity. He became a member of the Council of Torah Sages of Agudat Yisrael, and is thus described in an article he wrote in the twenty-fifth anniversary journal of the Beis Yaakov institutions in Tel Aviv.56 In “What Do Women Merit?” R. Tavyomi addresses the halachic status of women. It is not a halachic discourse per se but an apology defending halachic axioms in a modern world that perceives them as outdated and chauvinistic. The article poses a series of questions: whether a woman’s status is marginal in relation to men, why women are ineligible to testify, and finally why women are prohibited from studying Torah. What some see as the marginalization of women he writes is actually a result of deep respect for women. A woman cannot testify in a court, not because she lacks judgment, but because it is an aggressive event not befitting the natural delicacy of women. Concerning Torah study, he answers that since the Oral Torah requires drawing conclusions, reinterpretation, and creation of analogies (pilpulim), those who study it require complete objectivity along with freedom from preconceived notions and inclinations. Therefore: who can guarantee that a woman, soft-hearted, weak-willed and emotional – when taught some of the Oral Torah as practical Halacha – will not reveal things in the Torah that are not according to Halacha? That

72

Women’s education in h.aredi society

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

she will not pull her intelligence after her heart and not incline her opinion toward her previous desire [to grow spiritually]?57 At first glance this characterization of women seems no different than that of Beis Yaakov detractors. By portraying women as “soft-hearted, weak-willed and emotional,” however, he depicts them as having a unique way to observe the world and to worship: “ … Women are as soft as wax, easy to be impressed and become emotional from all of life’s occurrences.”58 His vision of the Jewish woman is of a housewife, but “one who is interested in what is happening in the world.”59 Such a woman learns the Written Torah as well as ideological texts like tractate Avot in order to create this outlook on life. In his article in Or Hameir dated July 20, 1941,60 R. Tavyomi first addresses the zealots. The same group of zealots in Jerusalem who came out against the Beis Yaakov institutions, he says, also opposed a decision by leading rabbis in Poland to support Beis Yaakov. At a meeting of the Council of Torah Sages and the steering committee of Agudat Yisrael, to which Tavyomi belonged at the time, the council agreed to support the establishment of the system in light of the success of the school in Cracow. He implies there is no need to address these things at all, silently invoking the concept of Da’at Torah, but because of Shz.ranski’s request, Tavyomi answers anyway.61 While everyone is obligated to read the Megillah on Purim (Talmud Tractate Arakhin 2), the Tosafists point out that women are commanded to hear the Megillah but not to read it (Halachot Gedolot). The difference, R. Tavyomi explains, is between learning Torah and hearing Torah. Just as there is a type of learning when reading the Torah, there is also a type of learning when reading the Megillah. Because women are not only exempt but prohibited from learning Torah, they could not be obligated to read the Megillah. They are, however obligated to listen, as described in the biblical account of the Hakhel. The prohibition is against teaching them, not their learning on their own.62 Tavyomi does not find the source for Maimonides’ distinction between the written and oral law in the Mishnah tractate Nedarim, because in the version of Maimonides in the commentary on the Mishnah, girls are not even mentioned. R. Tavyomi maintains that the source is the passage in Ketubot 28b. The Talmud states that a man is relied upon to say that in his youth, he saw a person go out of a school to eat a tithe, therefore affirming his status as a cohen. There is no room to suspect that the person eating a tithe was a Canaanite slave of a cohen (priest) who was freed in the meantime, because according to R. Joshua ben Levi one cannot teach a slave Torah. Why does R. Joshua ben Levi need this source, since women and slaves fall into the same category, and both are prohibited from learning the Oral Torah? R. Tavyomi concludes that he wants to add a new interpretation: slaves are forbidden from learning the Written Torah as well.63 For the distinction between Written and Oral Torah, Tavyomi adduces a more detailed source from the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 4:3, where a slave may be called to read the Torah after seven others have been called to the

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

73

Torah. A question in the name of Rabbi Yosi asks how this can be, since a slave is forbidden from learning Torah. The slave must have learned on his own, or his rabbi taught him as in the case of Tavi.64 Since a woman may also be called as one of the seven readers of the Torah (tractate Megillah), then the ruling of the Jerusalem Talmud must also apply to women. They are permitted to learn on their own, or may be taught once they have shown they are not like all women.65 Tavyomi rejects the notion that one could teach women the literal meaning of the Torah on a regular basis (the Taz), as Maimonides prohibits teaching a woman the Written Torah from the beginning without distinguishing between types of learning. He explains Maimonides’ distinction between ab initio and ex post facto regarding the Written Torah via the principle of lo plug rabbanan – a rabbinic rule that the sages made general decrees but from which they did not exclude even improbable scenarios where the reason for the decree might not apply. Since the Written Torah leads to questions, and interpretation of the Torah is considered learning the Oral Torah, Maimonides did not permit the study of the Written Torah from the beginning. Yet once she has already learned, he cannot call it tiflut because the essence of Written Torah is not tiflut.66 Teaching specific laws, R. Tavyomi writes, is permitted, and there is great benefit in doing so. Study increases fear of heaven and fulfills the commandment of education, which parents are obligated to provide for their children, including their daughters. Finally, he returns to the zealots’ criticism of Beis Yaakov: As far as the Halacha, the words of Maimonides, Sefer H . asidim and the Sefer Miz.vot Gadol and those who came afterward – the Taz and the Magen Avraham – do not need any strengthening. As for those who question them and appeal their rulings, if he is just an ordinary person, someone should check that he has not become a heretic. But if he is a zealot and does so with pure intentions and fear of heaven, he needs his head examined.67 R. Tavyomi gives two reasons to support the Beis Yaakov schools: (1) the legitimacy rabbinic leaders have given it and (2) a halachic discussion using the canonical sources that yields legal grounds for Beis Yaakov. The reasoning for the endorsement of the Beis Yaakov schools and their curriculum, he writes, is no mere legal debate but a crucial factor in stemming an historic process in which true authentic Jews are under attack from the forces of change. Rabbi Meir Stelviz. Written by R. Meir Stelviz., the last responsum in Shz.ranski’s collection revisits the standard sources, concluding that women need to learn so they may

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

74

Women’s education in h.aredi society

function in traditional gender roles.68 Eschewing ideology and polemic, R. Stelviz. takes a definite halachic approach. His contribution was republished in a later edition of a book of responsa he authored.69 At the time he was serving as rabbi of the Zikhron Moshe neighborhood in Jerusalem, after having served as the rabbi of several communities in the area of Kovno Vitebsk. Before immigrating to Israel he headed the rabbinical court of the H . eslevitch community. Dated May 28, 1941, the responsum addresses Maimonides’ ruling that it is forbidden for a man to teach his daughter Torah; if a woman has learned nevertheless, she earns a reward. How can it be that the same action has two different results: one punished and the other rewarded? The answer lies in the disparity between knowledge of the Torah as an independent need and knowledge of the Torah in order to fulfill the commandments. R. Soloveitchik mentions this principle, determining that because there is a distinction between the two, learning for knowledge of the commandments is limited: “This is not a vague practical commandment, but only a preparation for observing the commandment, to which [preparation] women are also obligated.”70 R. Stelviz. then cites R. Nathanson, who questions how Ben Azai can obligate a woman to learn Torah, since she is exempt from it (Kiddushin). The disparity, R. Stelviz. writes, stems from a dispute about learning for the sake of knowledge alone. Fulfilling the commandment requires learning Torah and the reasons for the commandments (Ben Azai), but there is a difference between in-depth and simple learning (R. Nathanson on tractate Ketuboth and the Taz). R. Stelviz. enlists R. Archivolti and his responsa Ma’ayan Ganim as another opinion in favor of Torah study for women proven worthy of Torah study. Stelviz. concludes: … None of our women know the commandments without having learned them, and this [learning] is permitted, even the Oral Torah, because all learning comes at the expense of knowing the commandments without learning, and in this they are permitted, and even if they do not intend to learn it for knowing the commandments it is still learning that is permitted, and therefore there is no need for a special kavana (intention) to learn only for the sake of knowing the commandments.71 The rhetoric of Or Hameir sheds light on two historical facts: first, leaders of the h.aredi public in pre-state Israel understood the need to establish a halachically legitimate educational system for girls, and second, they faced fierce opposition from the zealots’ camp in Jerusalem. The halachic models adopted in these responsa, however, were not innovative: a strategic move, since the goal was to present Beis Yaakov not as revolutionary but entirely consonant with halachic tradition. Aside from that of R. Soroz.kin, who uses exegetical tools, the other responsa were based on prior halachic discourse, and there is no doubt that any innovations occurred only from an historical perspective, not a halachic one.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

75

Women should study canonical literature so they would better understand their traditional gender roles in a changing world. Their studies should include basic Written Torah, although what falls under such a definition, whether by accident or design, is not completely clear. Classes should also include basic halachic rules and the basic tenets of faith. The willingness to acknowledge changes in women’s roles was not caused by a shift in values regarding the status of Jewish women in twentieth-century society, but by a social change that had led to their assimilation and secularization to such a degree that it was a risk to the continued existence of the h.aredi community. The responsa published by Rabbis Soroz.kin and Tavyomi, both members of the Council of Torah Sages, made substantial claims about the place of women as a class in the Jewish home, her duties in a changing world, and the need to ensure her continued contribution to a Jewish, Torahobservant society. At the same time these responsa also acknowledged the possibility of exceptional women who may study beyond the general guidelines.

Post-Holocaust responses Rabbi Moses Dov Velner The responsa in Or Hameir were written in the context of a pre-Holocaust world, but the war radically changed that context. The Jewish communities of Poland were annihilated and the center of the h.aredi world moved to Israel, where Beis Yaakov was becoming a permanent fixture in the learners’ society, a role halachic texts show implicitly time and time again. A responsum written by R. Moses Dov Velner addresses the question of women participating in the National Bible Contest. Serving as a rabbinic judge in Ashkelon, he grew up in Hungary where he studied in its yeshivas. After surviving the Holocaust, he immigrated to Israel, and his book of responsa reflects Hungarian halachic tradition. Since 1961, the Bible contest has been held annually on Israeli Independence Day with participants from all over the world. Including both teenage boys and girls, some participants are not Sabbath observers.72 Although R. Velner ultimately forbids participation in the contest with secular Jews, he also addresses the general question of Torah study for women. Women are exempt from the study of Torah (Kiddushin), and rabbinic law prohibits them from studying Torah (tractate Sotah). Modesty, R. Velner writes, is the crux of the dispute in tractate Sotah. Ben Azai requires learning Torah because that is the only means of teaching women about modesty, a commandment to which women are especially obligated. Even if a woman stumbles (i.e., commits adultery) she would not become an unbeliever: if the “cursing waters” are ineffective, she will know that her previous merits have held the punishment in abeyance. Rabbi Eli’ezer, who forbids women from learning, maintains that the Torah cannot prevent evil inclination among women, only among men.73

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

76

Women’s education in h.aredi society

In contrast to the commentaries on the Hakhel that distinguish between studying and listening and assign them symbolic, gender-specific meaning, R. Velner sees the passage as literal description: the women stood in the women’s gallery erected to prevent mixing of the sexes, far from the king who was reading from the Torah, and they could not hear, just as any men who happened to be standing in the back.74 This move essentially deletes this text from the discourse. Although he recounts the position of Maimonides and the dispute of the Bah. and the Taz about learning the Written Torah, R. Velner offers a halachic innovation for which I have not found a parallel. The exemption of a father from teaching his daughters exists parallel to his obligation to teach his sons Torah. Thus while teaching his sons the Written Torah he may include his daughter. By extension, a woman interested in hearing a lesson for men about the Written Torah should not be prevented from doing so, and she is permitted to teach other women the Written Torah even from the start.75 The standard arguments by Maimonides and Rashi forbidding women from learning the Oral Torah comprise the general rule, but R. Velner permits teaching a woman Torah when she “sets herself apart” from other women, and a father may include his wise older daughter in a lesson on the Oral Torah with his sons. Calling on the Torah Temimah’s citation of Ma’ayan Ganim for support,76 however, R. Velner believes a father should not teach his daughter alone. While preserving the class prohibition of women’s Torah study, Velner thus broadens the exception to include two subclasses of women: those who “set themselves apart” and older daughters permitted to study with their brothers but not alone. In a family setting R. Velner feels these issues are less problematic. This vision of family learning was by no means universal. R. Nathan Geshtetner, head of the Bnei Brak yeshiva Panim Me’irot, stresses the exemption of a father from teaching his daughter and a woman from Torah study of any kind. While a woman is obligated to learn the laws that apply to her (R. Isserles), that instruction should be limited strictly to the practical performance of miz.vot. A woman with questions should simply ask her rabbi.77 Rabbi Shraga Feibush Schna’abalg, rabbi of a London community, was asked whether it is permissible to study Mishnah from tractate Shabat with women during the Sabbath night. This is traditionally a time for family gathering and the Mishnah is a very basic text. He rules in the negative: there are no exception to the ruling of Maimonides and the Shulh.an Arukh.78 Rabbi Elazar Menah.em Shakh: the “official” h.aredi position in the post-war era The writings of R. Shakh (1898–2001) are emblematic of Beis Yaakov’s central place in the post-war h.aredi community. The most noted example for the rise of the Da’at Torah in h.aredi public life, he was a dominant leader

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

77

known to crush his opposition. He was seen not only as a talmudic scholar but also as arbiter of practical matters of daily life. He instigated public policy on issues as diverse as the scope of relations to secular Jews, the place of literature in h.aredi life, or the correct age to obtain a driver’s license. These views were not based on halachic discourse, which in some cases did not previously exist, but on Da’at Torah. Shakh had left Eastern Europe and its yeshivas before the Holocaust and became the torchbearer of h.aredi ideology: he had received the “true” h.aredi worldview from Eastern Europe, now destroyed, and transmitted it to the h.aredi communities in Israel.79 He wielded significant political power in general Israeli society as well.80 The source of his power was his role as the yeshiva head of Ponoviz, a position that allowed him to create a political party and also become an ideologue of Lithuanian h.aredi ideology, an outlook that influenced the rest of h.aredi society.81 He was not, however, a halachic decisor. As a yeshiva head and a pupil of the Brisk ideology, he drew a solid line between the world of a teacher and that of a scholar who deals with pure models within Jewish law. Two sections of Avi Ezri,82 his book on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, deal with women’s study. The first, from the sixth edition published in 1985, deals with the laws of Maimonides Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:1. There he addresses Maimonides’ ruling that a woman is exempt from Torah study and is not obligated to teach her son Torah. He questions why in spite of Maimonides’ ruling the Shulh.an Arukh requires a woman to recite blessings on the Torah. Although some maintain that this obligation is because women are required to learn laws relevant to them (Magen Avraham OH . 47:14), others disagree, holding that it stems from the idea that women have a choice whether or not to observe a commandment from which they are exempt. Shakh sharpens R. Soloveitchik’s teleological distinction of two types of learning, maintaining there are two commandments inherent to learning Torah: the first is “And you should teach your sons,” and from this women are exempt (TB Kiddushin). Yet there is a second aspect of Torah knowledge from which women are not exempt: the individual requirement to know what is relevant for each commandment to which one is obligated. This obligation is not an independent commandment, but integral to the commandment itself. In similar fashion the talmudic saying that a non-Jew who learns Torah is equal to a high priest also applies a woman who learns Torah. There is no prohibition for a woman to learn on her own since she knows that her object is to learn Torah, and therefore she earns a reward, even though the teacher is acting improperly by teaching her. He raises an additional point: according to the Shulh.an Arukh a woman recites the blessings on the Torah. This does not conform to the view of Maimonides adopted by the Shulh.an Aruch elsewhere, according to which a woman may not recite blessings on a commandment if she is exempt from it. Thus a woman’s Torah study must have a greater significance than the merely utilitarian: the

78

Women’s education in h.aredi society

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

knowledge itself has intrinsic value. The command still stems from the specific commandment that the woman is obligated to fulfill, but it is not merely to fulfill the commandment. It is actually part of the commandment, so the woman can recite the blessings of the Torah: … in pure Torah study she needs to say even “and we were commanded” because of the additional commandment of Torah study, even though this is not the commandment of learning Torah, at any rate the fact that she is learning means she is fulfilling a commandment like anyone who is not commanded yet fulfills, and the “we are commanded” refers to this additional law.83 Shakh neither takes the approach of a halachic decisor nor addresses the limits of Torah study for women, yet he assumes an unequivocal moral stance toward education for girls in h.aredi society. Although women’s role still remains outside the Beit Midrash,84 he assigns greater importance to their study than mere “preparation for a miz.vah.” Rabbi Binyamin Yehoshu’a Zilber: women’s religious experience While many rabbis focus on the purely practical aspect of women’s education, R. Binyamin Yehoshu’a Zilber put women’s religious experience at the center. He identifies women as beings with religious needs and characterizes them not as vulnerable females but as having a similar potential to men in worship. R. Zilber, a student of R. Karelitz, became a member of the Council of Torah Sages of Agudat Yisrael in his later years. He was a unique figure because he was both one of the last remaining proponents of the mussar (ethics) movement and a halachic decisor. In a responsum in the book Az Nedaberu, he discusses whether women are permitted to study both Torah and ethical teachings.85 After pointing out the breadth of ethical studies appropriate for women, he cannot see how the questioner can assume that women cannot learn for themselves. The Jewish people have known many knowledgeable women. When Maimonides wrote “most women,” he meant that a woman may be taught if she has proven that she does not take words of Torah and turn them into foolishness, and it is definitely permissible for her to learn on her own. Appearing for the first time in the Ma’ayan Ganim, this explanation represents the broadest possible inclusion of women in Torah study. The words of Rabbi Eli’ezer are not eternally valid but subject to the historical exigencies of time and place. A woman is not born with qualities of one kind or another but is an agent of free will subject to her environment. A woman may choose to study. The study of ethics and moral virtues makes no distinction between men and women and is part of the study of commandments to which women are obligated. The sages of the generation, including the H . afez. H . ayyim,

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

79

permitted teaching women the Written Torah with commentaries in Beis Yaakov schools, and this was not a concern. He recommends learning Bible and especially the Pentateuch with Rashi’s commentary, with at most one additional commentary.86 R. Zilber sees a need for Beis Yaakov institutions and girls’ education in religious subjects, including Jewish law and the Bible with commentaries, and these studies should not be condemned. At the center of his claim is a more favorable evaluation of women’s cognitive abilities and potential.87 Since women are more emotional than men, they should be introduced to texts that will cultivate a faith arising from the heart. As mothers and bearers of tradition, women are essential to the survival of the h.aredi community. There are exceptional women who might be permitted more advanced study, but the future of the h.aredi community is dependent on a stability that could be endangered with too much educational reform.

Three conservative voices: Rabbis Vozner, Rubin and Gross Even though Beis Yaakov schools are essentially conservative institutions preserving h.aredi separation from non-religious society, some even more conservative critics reprimand contemporary Beis Yaakov schools for teaching their students too much. Minimizing the exception for exceptional women, these voices evoke a different image of women than Beis Yaakov proponents. While Beis Yaakov imaged itself as a change necessary in a generation that demands women’s education, conservatives voice the fear that in a generation so depraved, women’s education can only serve as the gateway to heresy. Jewish women are in danger of being exposed to complexities that can have detrimental effects in the modern era: Beis Yaakov has gone too far with its curriculum. Rabbi Samuel Vozner is the rabbi of the Zikhron Meir neighborhood in Bnei Brak and head of the Yeshiva H . akhmei Lublin. A prominent h.aredi decisor, he straddles the border between the h.asidic and Lithuanian communities, between Satmar and the mainstream h.aredi world. He has been a recognized figure in the h.aredi community from the early days of the state, as attested by his many signatures as rabbi of Zikhron Meir on documents of the United Religious Front in the first election campaign. Rabbi Avraham Rubin, who exchanged letters with R. Vozner on the topic, is mostly known in the h.aredi community because of his kosher certification agency. This exchange of letters discloses a shared criticism of the curriculum as well as a shared perception of women’s character: women are ontologically incapable of Torah study. The third voice is that of Rabbi Shamai Kehat Gross, a decisor in the Belz community, who while discussing women listening in to classes over the telephone so minimizes the definition of exceptional women that it becomes an empty category.

80

Women’s education in h.aredi society

Rabbi Samuel Vozner: on the border between Satmar and the h.aredi world

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

R. Vozner’s 1984 responsum on education of girls takes an extremely combative stance.88 A woman who learns does earn “a little reward,” and there is no outright Torah prohibition to teach her, as one of the great sages of the generations claimed. True, there were learned women, however: Since only a tiny minority of women can achieve real gains in the truth of Torah, and the nature of a woman generally does not allow her to achieve or understand the true meaning of the Torah, and because of this they are not learned in the proper way of our holy Torah, they take the words of the Torah to nothingness, and therefore the sages forbade teaching one’s daughter Torah whether he educated her at home or at school, and they said it is as if he taught her tiflut, meaning that there is nothing to do here but sit and not act, and it is commanded that she not learn, but there is also a sin in rising and acting, by teaching her tiflut.89 He also adduces the Me’iri’s interpretation of the “words of foolishness,” a woman’s lack of understanding, and the Jerusalem Talmud that “words of Torah should be burned.” It is forbidden for a woman to trust herself not to take words of Torah and turn them into words of foolishness. A woman’s inability to grapple with Torah study is not something that can be prevented, and it is not within the woman’s control. These considerations pertain to the Oral Torah. As for the Written Torah, there is no denying that despite the opposition of Maimonides, some Rishonim permit women to learn Written Torah. He cites the approach of the Taz regarding the literal meaning of the Written Torah, and notes that this was the ruling of R. Teitelbaum in Vayoel Moshe. Maimonides is addressing a prohibition ab initio against learning Torah in depth. Then R. Vozner applies the ruling directly to Beis Yaakov: And from this we still do not permit teaching Torah to girls, with in-depth commentaries like Nah.manides and Ibn Ezra and the like, nor with Rashi’s commentary on the Torah – is it not full of legends from the sages and the Oral Torah? … and I know that most schools for girls in our generation do not live up to this and go far beyond and against the Halacha. I’ve already said to the great rabbinic educator, righteous in his actions, Rabbi Abraham Joseph Wolf, that the Torah is eternal. If they said it is as teaching them tiflut then it is such in all generations, even if it is permitted because of “time to act for God” because they violated the Torah. Because if it were not for this [education] the girls would be doing even worse things. In any event who can make that determination, and who actually made the determination, and it is obvious that this bad thing of teaching them tiflut will rear its head sooner or later, and the words of Torah as decreed will never change, and it is hard to establish the correct law in this matter.90

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

81

He even notes that one may teach girls Torah from books and not through listening (Arukh Hashulh.an). The great rabbis of the generations permitted establishing schools because of the current need. They permitted learning from books, but only the legends of the sages, never Mishnah or Talmud. He adds a list of topics in Jewish law that one should teach women: Kosher salting of meat, Sabbath, the basics on festivals, blessings, prayers, modesty, slander, a little on charity and good deeds, and in the land of Israel, a few commandments related to agriculture. All of this should be explained in the most basic way so that they will ask whenever a question arises. In Shevet halevi there is an additional short responsum on this topic on June 17, 1991, to R. Rubin.91 The questioner countered that in light of the rulings of R. Joshua Falk and the Maharil, a woman can learn by herself. In a brief reply, Rabbi Vozner analyzes these sources and concludes that if a woman comes to ask whether she can learn Torah she should be prohibited, because one cannot know what is in her heart. Only if one can see that a woman has already learned on her own and not turned the words of Torah into words of folly can it be said that her learning will be rewarded. R. Vozner finds that woman’s nature prevents the proper study of Torah. This defect will never change, and Torah study can even harm a woman. Thus the Beis Yaakov institutions are a matter of ex post facto, forced upon society. They should not be condemned, however, since this could also lead to harm. Women are thus permitted to learn only the absolute minimum, with no depth to their curriculum. This view, which echoes throughout a particularly Hungarian tradition, claims that educational institutions in our day lie outside the permitted boundaries, and the education given to girls does not stand up to the requirements of Jewish law. Rabbi Abraham Rubin R. Rubin, who exchanged letters with R. Vozner on this topic, devoted a large part of his book Neharot Eytan to the question of Torah study for women. He approaches the subject from three different perspectives: a woman’s intrinsic ability to learn, the means by which she may be taught the materials she is required to learn, and her role in the Torah study of her husband and sons. His answer drawing the limits of Torah study for women reflects only a narrow range of texts.92 He mentions the explanations of Maimonides and the Me’iri of the term tiflut as well as the approach of the Taz permitting women to learn the literal meaning of the scriptures. Although he notes the Maharil’s allowing women to study on their own, he forbids a woman from independent learning even if she believes that she will not turn words of Torah into words of folly because it is difficult to evaluate. R. Rubin writes of a conversation with R. Vozner following their exchange of letters. They discussed that one should be wary because a woman could not reasonably judge what is in her own heart. Only if a woman has acted on her

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

82

Women’s education in h.aredi society

own accord can it be said that she earns a reward because she learned on her own and did not fail. According to the Arukh HaShulh.an, it is not appropriate for women to learn from holy books, and R. Rubin mentions that this was also the policy of R. Wolf. It is interesting that R. Rubin deigns to cite R. Wolf ’s book, which is not a normative halachic source. He even quotes at length the words of Vayoel Moshe on the educational dangers threatening the daughters of Israel. Time and again, R. Rubin warns that great care must be taken in educating women because of their role as mothers, and that special books must be created for them. He particularly regrets that women learn “research books,” i.e., books of Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah. The purpose of books for women, he says, is to infuse “simple faith.” By the same measure, one must carefully supervise the secular studies of women. Yet what if a woman has studied on her own and proven that she does not turn words of Torah into words of folly? May such a woman teach men? At first glance there is room to answer affirmatively, but R. Rubin forbids it even in this case because: [in] their Torah there is also tiflut, because they do not always have the proper intention, and may not understand the Torah’s main point. Because sometimes, even if they are sure they understand the intended meaning, they will pass these things on to male students, and will then be teaching Torah that contains tiflut. And at other times they miss the real point that is in the Torah, and consequently the Torah being learned is lacking, since it is not Torah as it should be.93 While there are women, he admits, who do not manifest tiflut in their Torah learning at all, such as the ones that the great rabbis of Israel recognized and cited, it is never certain that just any woman could be included in this minority. All that is permitted women is to teach small children a few laws and legends of the sages as simple stories. A different responsum addresses teaching women the laws they are permitted to learn. He explains that this was part of a talk at a rabbinic discussion on seminaries for girls in outlying areas. Noting the comments of Rabbis Teitelbaum and Vozner on the need to limit the preoccupation of women with Torah, he also mentions the responsum of Vaya’an David, which objected to teaching Bible to women with the commentaries of Rashi, Nah.manides, and Ibn Ezra. He repeats R. Wolf ’s view that the change implemented by the H . afez. H . ayyim was the result of a specific historical reality that necessitated a h.aredi educational system for girls. Changes in women education should be minimal since it is not clear where the line should be drawn. This is especially true for Ba’alot tshuvah (female returnees to Judaism) “who studied twisted things in universities and the like, and we must teach them deep things in order to straighten out their knowledge and outlook.”94 The responsa of R. Rubin and his correspondence with R.Vozner are primarily a theoretical discourse based more on ontological claims than halachic

Women’s education in h.aredi society

83

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

ones, embodying the founding narrative of h.aredi society in which every change is fraught with danger. Women’s vulnerable nature requires special protection, whether from secular studies or the pitfalls of engaging intently with Torah. For R. Rubin, this protection surrounds traditional gender stereotypes, while R. Vozner redefines exceptional women so narrowly that almost none can qualify. Beis Yaakov thus looms as a potential gateway to trouble. Rabbi Gross and women’s independent study H . aredi rabbis worked from a clear picture of what contemporary women’s education looked like: Beis Yaakov. While they still might debate the place for individual women who either by skill or desire could be permitted access to Torah, the creation of a mass educational system targeting the widest number of students faced them squarely with the issue of dealing with females students as a class. Beis Yaakov proponents resolved this tension by stressing that the curriculum excluded the systematic study of Talmud, the core of Torah study in Orthodoxy. The issue of “exceptional” women who study by themselves becomes particularly urgent in an era when technological advancement has increases the modalities available for more independent study. Rabbi Shamai Gross, a decisor in the Belz community, twice addresses the topic: in his notes to Hilkhot Talmud Torah of Maimonides and in a responsum. In his comments on Maimonides he explains that “most women are not of the mind to be taught,” implying a minority of women who may learn. The prohibition refers to a woman learning from someone else, but any manner of self-study is permitted based on the Maharil.95 When R. Gross was asked specifically whether a woman could listen to a Talmud lesson over the telephone,96 he replies in the negative. He explains that the prohibition is only on self-study as understood from the Maharil, but since the Maharil writes conflicting responsa he is not interested in ruling leniently. Therefore, he defines the study permitted to women as “receiving the rudiments and general rules” only. If so, how can one explain the testimony of the Talmud about women Torah scholars? The study of Torah is possible in three ways: (1) By reception, studying the rudiments, and basic rules. (2) Their fathers ruled like Ben Azai. (3) They learned on their own against the will of the sages and their dismal end testifies that they should not have learned. R. Gross is alluding, of course, to Rashi’s cautionary tale about Bruriah. R. Gross forbids a woman from listening to a class over the telephone because the Talmud contains much homiletic material “that one cannot learn with a woman, since because of the weakness of their intellect and the lightness of their judgment they will not understand the depth of the intention of the sages and will explain it in their simplicity.”97 Even if women may learn on their own, a telephone lesson is not independent study, but a private

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

84

Women’s education in h.aredi society

lesson. He adds that according to the Midrash of R. Eleazar in tractate H . agigah, women coming to hear means that even though the king calls all the people, women are forbidden to study his words but may only listen. Thus R. Gross completely uproots the possibility of independent study: exceptional women are so exceptional that they do not really exist. For R. Gross women are only a class, there are no exceptional women and no reason to risk giving a woman access to Torah study on the off chance that she will be worthy. Unlike R. Vozner and Rubin, he does not explain the blanket prohibition through ontological claims, but merely assumes them and states it as fact.

Rabbi Eli’ezer Valdenberg and the Tsanz Rebbe: a debate about the essence of women An exchange radically different than that of the like-minded conservatives Vozner and Rubin took place between two influential decisors over several months in 1967. Rabbi Eli’ezer Valdenberg (1915–2006), a prominent rabbi from Jerusalem, published a series of letters on women’s Torah study without naming his correspondent, addressing him only as “the genius and righteous famous one, may he live a long time.”98 These letters were, in fact, sent to Rabbi Jekuthiel Judah Halberstam, “the Rebbe of Tsanz,” who died in 1994 at the age of 90. The letters preserve a rhetorical clash between Valdenberg’s mainstream h.aredi approach to women’s education and the classic opposition response to Beis Yaakov from the pre-war era. On a deeper level, this correspondence represents two opposing views of women where the interpretation of canonical texts recedes before reductionist and ontological arguments based on these views. R. Valdenberg sees women’s character as incompatible with the study of Talmud but still capable of learning Jewish texts needed to understand the commitment to Torah study and the financial hardships that come with it. Beis Yaakov schools are thus needed to create this commitment in an era where without a strong formal educational system, rather than becoming loyal helpers in the fight to preserve Judaism, women would be swept away by secularism. The opposing view, however, sees women as irrevocably impure, and thus ontologically incapable of approaching the holiness of Torah. Impurity is inherent to the female body and its reproductive cycle. In violating the purity of Torah, Beis Yaakov thus does more harm than good. More than anything else, however, Beis Yaakov is a dangerous novelty, another form of modernity that threatens h.aredi society. Wielding great influence on the interaction between Jewish law and the world of medicine, R. Valdenberg also dealt with Torah study for women in three separate responsa. Despite his beginnings in the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem, he dealt with many questions of Torah and state and sat as a judge in the High Rabbinic Court for many years. With no scholarly biography, the discussion of his approach to Jewish law is only in its early stages.99

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

85

His first responsum demonstrates a sovereign mastery over the large number of sources.100 He asks whether the rulings of Maimonides, the Tur and the Shulh.an Arukh contradict the Tosefta in tractate Berakhot 2.12, which permits men with a non-seminal discharge and menstruating women to read the Torah. R. Valdeberg offers two explanations for this: first, the Tosefta was based on the opinion of Ben Azai. The Talmud in tractate Berakhot 22a, however, does not mention menstruating females, only males and lepers, suggesting a different opinion that excluded women from Torah study. The Talmud does not accept the Tosefta’s approach, R. Valdeberg concludes, and therefore also rejects the approach of Ben Azai. There is also no room for speculation whether Maimonides ruled like Rabbi Eli’ezer, who is shamuti – a student of the house of Shammai, whose halachic opinions were usually not accepted – since the Talmud itself rejects Ben Azai. The Tosefta also refers to women who learn by themselves, i.e. individually, not – in both senses – as a class. As for teaching exceptionally talented woman, R. Valdenberg acknowledges the opinion of R. Azulai that one judges a woman according to the best of her intentions. R. Valdenberg qualifies his position, however, because since the demise of Bruriah one must be wary of trusting what is in a woman’s heart. He also references the responsum of R. Asad, and interprets it as ruling that there is no Torah prohibition against Torah study for women but it is nonetheless a rabbinic prohibition. R. Valdeberg notes that the Taz and R. Elijah of Vilnius both allowed women to say the benediction over Torah study since they can learn the Written Torah, but prohibited the independent study of the Oral Torah. R. Valdeberg disagrees, maintaining that there is no reason to distinguish between the Oral and the Written Torah, which should also not be studied ab initio. In this light he cites an explanation from Rabbi Samuel Ehrenfeld in his book H . atan Sofer: But as a general rule women do not know how to learn except what they have been taught from the beginning and have been shown how to learn, and therefore it is impossible to say that they should [recite a blessing I.F.] on something that is generally forbidden to them, that is, on the Oral Torah or in-depth study of the Written Torah, therefore they understood the intent to be that they would recite the blessing on the literal meaning of the written scriptures, since they are permitted to learn this.101 While he supports independent learning for women, he chooses a passage that voices serious reservations about women who learn. After citing sources permitting women to recite the blessings of the Torah, he discusses the position of the Taz, who permitted teaching the Written Torah to women on a basic level. He then mentions the H . afez. H . ayyim and his position regarding the obligation of teaching Torah to girls in light of the difficult situation. Only at the end does R. Valdenberg add something of his own when he

86

Women’s education in h.aredi society

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

distinguishes between two types of reward based on the distinction between the two types of learning discussed in the responsa of the Beit Halevi by R. Soloveitchik: The specific reward they do not receive, in that they are not commanded to learn, as we exclude them – “and you should teach them to your sons,” and not your daughters. The specific reward only applies to one who is commanded and fulfills, because then the specific reward attaches itself to his positive action and he draws onto himself a godly abundance and spiritual vitality (see in Imrei Bina). Yet a general reward certainly belongs also to women for learning Torah, because this is compensation for doing good, and as if so to speak they served God in that she learns with the intention of holding fast to His Torah, and in order to know the way in which she should walk and the action that she should take for her good in this world and the next. And one could say that this is also the intention of Maimonides when he said that she is rewarded but not like a man, that is, she does not in fact receive a specific reward, but a general reward she certainly has.102 In a response to a letter sent to him by R. Moses Dov Velner dated April 2, 1967, R. Valdenberg derives an additional principle from this passage. He supports the understanding that the reasons for both Maimonides and Rashi forbidding women’s Torah study are identical, combining Rashi’s fear of promiscuity and Maimonides fear of intellectual inadequacy. Thus a fear of “light-minded” promiscuity is the central factor in preventing women from learning.103 In all his answers, R. Valdenberg reflects the h.aredi consensus that views education in Beis Yaakov exclusively as an ad hoc necessity. It must not be condemned because it limits Jewish studies to the barest minimum required to preserve the community. His position on the matter brought a spirited exchange of letters with the Tsanz Rebbe, who questioned the basic premises of R. Valdenberg, premises that had become an essential part of h.aredi life. The Tsanz Rebbe was a product of extreme Hungarian Orthodoxy, but after his family was destroyed in the Holocaust he integrated into the Agudat Yisrael movement and established a large h.asidic community in Israel centered in Netanya.104 His objections to R. Valdenberg’s responsum demonstrate an innovative way of grappling with the issue of Torah study for women within Jewish law. R. Valdenberg’s responses to his criticism also sharpens his position as well as his relationship to modernity in general. Both of these texts appear to be unrelated, as neither original question nor the addressee is noted. Yet when comparing the two it becomes clear that this was an exchange of letters. The Tsanz Rebbe presents a position diametrically opposed to that of R. Valdenberg.105 His lengthy answer opens with a halachic discussion not connected to the discussion of Torah study for women and the passage from tractate Sotah. Instead, he raises the question of a

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

87

custom with no source in the Talmud relating to the laws of menstruating women.106 Some of the laws on menstruating women relate to a series of harh.akot, or “distancings,” meaning behaviors intended to prevent contact between a husband and his menstruating wife in order to minimize the possibility that they will violate a Torah or rabbinic prohibition. In general, the source for the customs of harh.aka are homiletic passages in tractate Shabat 13a, and from which were derived a series of customs outlined in the Shulh.an Arukh.107 Regarding these laws, R. Isserles notes in the Shulh.an Arukh that in some Jewish communities, women refrain from saying prayers, blessings, entering the synagogue, and looking at a Torah scroll when they are in an impure state: There are those who wrote that a woman during the days she sees blood may not enter a synagogue or pray or mention God’s name or touch a book, and some say all that is permitted, and this is the main rule, but the custom in these countries is according to the first opinion. And during the days that she wears white, they are generally permitted. And even in places where they ruled stringently, on High Holy Days and the like, when many gather to go to the synagogue, the women are permitted to go to the synagogue like all women, because they experienced sadness when everyone gathered and they remained outside.108 Though the custom is not mentioned in the Talmud, its source is in the literature of the Rishonim.109 Later decisors will attempt to minimize the observance of these customs,110 but the Rebbe of Tsanz uses them as a reason to forbid Torah study among women, since any pre-menopausal woman is potentially impure. In his responsum he cites a series of Rishonim who addressed the topic as well as noting an opinion that this prohibition is not merely a stringency but an actual Halacha.111 Although there is no source for this in the Talmud and hardly any rabbinic support, he adopts this point as a central position. After mentioning all of the Rishonim who discuss the topic, he brings up an additional point that supports the stringency, the impurity of a man who has had an emission of semen.112 This impurity no longer prevents the study of Torah in modern times, which the Rebbe of Tsanz could not dispute. Yet since immersion to remedy this form of impurity is a central feature of h.asidic life, although considered a stringency, he uses it to support his argument. He mentions the explanation of Rabbi Eli’ezer Azikri on the Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 3,4 6:4–7:1, that even though this decree was nullified, it was so only for men obligated to study Torah who would lose this miz.vah if they did not immerse, but not as far as women are concerned. After establishing his objection based on these arguments, he recalls the ruling of the Shulh.an Arukh that women should learn commandments relevant to them. He cites books written for women in earlier generations, such as

88

Women’s education in h.aredi society

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Z.e’enah Re’enah and Menorat Hamaor, and vehemently condemns a situation in which women study books of philosophy: And I attest to the land and the heavens above that two young girls appeared before me, who learn in very h.aredi schools, who cried before me bitterly for advice because, may heaven grant us mercy, doubts and strange opinions had arisen in them, in faith in God and His Torah because they learned the views of Aristotle and the like, and they are unable to overcome the words of heresy that were planted in their hearts. And in truth, they should have “screamed like cranes” about this, until the thing be abolished. And I have heard from others from places where they teach books of Kabbalah, and how proud they are because of this, and in general, because of the issue of teaching the books of Kabbalah to the masses, how much people have gone around in circles.113 The degree to which the Rebbe of Tsanz took this seriously is clarified in the ruling that closes his response: It was hard for me to lose my temper, but I cannot stop my words, and in my opinion it is a foundation and a source for saving the generation where darkness covers the land and impurity breaks out and rises. And do not bring evidence from holy women who learned by themselves and correctly appraised themselves, as this cannot be applied at all to the public in this lowly generation, and God forbid to stray from the clear ruling in the Talmud and the Shulh.an Aruch that it is forbidden to teach them Torah. At the time I am signing this, it occurred to me that the sages said [Moed Katan 17a] if the rabbi is like an angel of the Lord of Hosts they should seek Torah from his mouth etc., and the commentaries wondered who went up to the heavens and saw an angel to know the sign. In my humble opinion, if a rabbi is similar to an angel and is not versed in world affairs and the lesser generations, and always rules according to Torah from heaven that was transmitted from Sinai, and via the sages one generation after another without any change, only then should he seek the Torah from his mouth, so we will know only what he received from his rabbi, going back to what Moses received from the Almighty.114 This strong evocation of a rabbinical line back to Moses shows that the Tsanz Rebbe is taking part in no theoretical debate, but speaking of something that touches his soul. It also hints at his motives. The arguments he raises about distancing menstruating women from holy objects and the “immersion of Ezra” for women are problematic, but the end of his letter takes a more fundamental position that Torah study by women is a serious danger, and that the status quo should not be changed. He chooses his arguments for tactical reasons, a strategy he makes explicit in a different place:

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

89

And one can infer from Orah. H . ayyim 88 that a menstruating woman, on the days she sees blood, may not mention God’s name, and see there the Magen Avraham 102, and in my responsum I discussed at length (in the section of Yoreh De’ah) the explanation of the Rishonim on this. And in my father’s house the practice was that women did not pray arvit (the evening prayer), which is optional, and perhaps they feared that menstruating women would pray, and because of such a concern it is not suitable to accept an obligation (for women to pray arvit). And likewise it is not worth it to enter into an obligation to observe commandments that women are exempt from, which could bring them to take a leniency, in that they will mention God’s name when saying blessings on the days that they are impure, and “sit and do not act” is better. And similarly women do not make havdala for themselves as is written in Orah. H . ayyim the end of 296, and see the Taz there No. 7 and the Magen Avraham No. 11. This is possibly because [havdala] contains a blessing, and because they are [already] exempt they were concerned about that issue (of menstruating women), and they don’t need to be stringent at all. And I heard from [my father] who heard from [his father] that there are “reasons of truth” that women should not perform time-bound commandments, and according to what we have written the hidden and revealed reasons lead to the same conclusion, and in the manner in which Sotah 20a states that one who teaches his daughter Torah is as if he teaches her licentiousness, and these words are very deep in the ways of wisdom.115 He brings up an interesting point in the name of his grandfather, the author of the collected responsa Divrei H . ayyim. There are hidden reasons for prohibition, and even if women could perform these commandments they are exempt and it is better they should not. An esoteric ruling is common in the Tsanz Rebbe’s tradition. The author of Divrei H . ayyim often used this technique when he objected to using machinemade matzos on Passover, claiming that the reasons for the prohibitions were secret.116 With parallels in Jewish works in philosophy and law,117 this technique was employed especially when the real reason was likely to be rejected. In this instance, the contorted explanation brought forth in Divrei Yaz.iv likely hides an especially combative position toward what appears to be a divergence from the traditional Jewish line in favor of modernity. In his other works, the Rebbe of Tsanz expresses a global fear of innovation. Thus he choose different reasons to strengthen his position without debating them, relying on charismatic leadership that does not require justification. Even though the Rebbe of Tsanz changed positions after the Holocaust, joining Agudat Yisrael and cooperating with the Zionist establishment, he refuses to retreat here because he identifies the desire to change women’s education as a dangerous transgression. This particularly Hungarian tradition maintains a special stringency regarding women’s education, which served as a red flag for Hungarian halachic decisors. The Rebbe of Tsanz also

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

90

Women’s education in h.aredi society

agreed to make many changes, but is not ready to budge on this issue even a hair’s breadth. He writes with considerable passion against what he identifies as a dangerous breach in the walls of Orthodoxy. This harsh response is aimed at R. Valdenberg, who, hardly innovative, takes a conservative position in everything related to girls’ education, only allowing the study of the Written Torah and laws relevant to women. The Rebbe of Tsanz wants to block Torah study for women completely, and thus attacks the h.aredi status quo regarding education of women. Though opening with praise and respect, R. Valdenberg’s response soon criticizes the Rebbe of Tsanz for attacking the ruling of the H . afez. H . ayyim, who supported teaching Torah to women. There is no reason to disagree with the H . afez. H . ayyim since his Da’at Torah allowed him to see future developments and devise solutions that are halachically valid even if somewhat innovative: [the Rebbe of Tsanz] expresses his opinion to rule stringently and not to teach Torah to girls at all, and most of his words refer to the stringency mentioned, that a woman may not pray or mention God’s name or touch a holy book during her days of menstrual impurity. And in my humble opinion, after asking forgiveness, this is not a response at all, and to erase with a swipe of a hand what all of the great rabbis of the recent generation saw fit to permit, to teach Torah to girls al taharat hakodesh [without foreign influences] because of the breaking out of boundaries of the generation, and so that the holy faith will be instilled and the truth will reside within them, and as the righteous scholar the H . afez. H . ayyim determined briefly and definitively, as I have mentioned. And I was very surprised and shocked at these words, sharp as a point of a sword, hinting at this righteous eminent scholar who predicted with his inner eye that because of change and the deterioration of the generations the study of Torah is permitted to them in our time, and preaching statements against him in this phrase, “and if it is said God forbid that we could make an assumption saying that the generations and times have changed to uproot, God forbid, the words of our sages, who knows where things will lead, and the sages warned in their words etc.” To this I will respond to his honor and greatness as Hannah responded to Eli the priest: No, my master [1Sam 1:15]. With all due respect and honor there is no room to speak in such language against this holy scholar who upheld the yoke of the Torah and of true, simple fear of God in this recent generation, and who knows what level of deterioration we would have reached had the Holy One in his mercy and graciousness provided the cure in advance of the illness to this lowly generation, to send us from Heaven a holy angel.118 After this passionate defense of the H . afez. H . ayyim, he addresses the objections of the Rebbe of Tsanz. First he recalls that R. Joseph Caro and R. Yeruh.am

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

91

objected to this custom and that R. Isserles sees it as a stringency, not a point of Jewish law. He cites a series of Rishonim and Ah.aronim adduced by the Rebbe of Tsanz, concluding that each of them also considered it a mere stringency, not the letter of the law. He completely rejects the assertion that menstruating women should be prevented from learning Jewish law. Regarding the immersion of Ezra, he argues that the position of the author of Sefer Hamikz.o’ot was not accepted as Halacha, just as other rulings of his were rejected. The Rebbe of Tsanz answered R. Valdenberg’s response briefly without repeating his earlier position. He makes a few comments about R. Valdenberg’s assertions, but admits that Torah study for women is the main issue, not the customs regarding menstruating women: But the main part of my argument was that it is impossible to change a clear ruling, in the Talmud Sotah 20a and 21b and in all the Rishonim and the Shulh.an Arukh Yore De’ah 246:6, that it is forbidden to teach them the Oral Torah and it is like teaching them tiflut, and according to Maimonides (Talmud Torah 1:13) and the Shulh.an Arukh, [learning] the Written Torah is forbidden even from the start. And I have come to make it clear why almost all of the great and righteous ones of the generation do not want to change and to innovate in any way, God forbid, and not to create a fence around faith and holiness made out of what the sages called licentiousness. And regarding what [you] said in the name of the righteous scholar the priest, greater than his brothers, author of the H . afez. H . ayyim, may his merit protect us: I knew him personally before [you] even heard of him, and I know the greatness of his value and his high rank, and the H . afez. H . ayyim does not need a defender for his greatness and holiness, and who does not tremble at his genius and his rulings? But we are dealing with Torah and truth is written in it, and the truth was given to all to say his true opinion. And the opinion of our rabbis and our holy fathers is that they did not want to stray even slightly from what the Shulh.an Arukh ruled as forbidden. And how frightening are the words of the Jerusalem Talmud, that are brought in the Tosafot on Sotah 21b s.v. Ben Azai, he said to them, “Let the words of Torah be burned and not passed on to women”119 – the quotation is from the Jerusalem Talmud, Sotah 3:4 (page 16.), and see there two explanations of Yefeh Mar’eh. [He goes on to give further sources.] He states clearly his objection, which centers on the essence of learning. He also directly opposes the opinion of the H . afez. H . ayyim. He goes on to say that the H . afez. H . ayyim in Likutei Halachot may have been referring to the Written Torah by creating a compendium based on excerpts of the Written Torah, but definitely not the Oral Torah. He reiterates this opinion in the final statement:

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

92

Women’s education in h.aredi society As stated, I have written this merely as an excursus, and my main point is that we may not change or innovate from what has been ruled in the Shulh.an Arukh with no dissent, that it is forbidden to teach them the Oral Torah and it is like teaching licentiousness, and for Maimonides and the Shulh.an Arukh, even the Written Torah is forbidden from the outset. And how much more so must one shout like a crane about the daughters of Israel learning philosophical investigations or works of Kabbalah, and how much more so at the time of their menstruation and flow, and how much more so that young male teachers should teach them. And this is clear by the truth of the Torah, and all the winds in the world will not move the truth from its place. And it would be fitting for the great rabbis of Israel to take counsel according to the Torah’s opinion to educate the daughters of Israel in the spirit of the Torah and the tradition of their forefathers, and to keep a watchful eye on this, as our sages wrote [H . agiga 9b] “One does not say examine the camel or examine the pig but examine the lamb,” that God forbid the Torah should not be passed to the hands of each and every one, and the danger inherent in this, who can foresee, and happy is the generation whose great Torah leaders are recruited to arouse and strengthen kosher education for the daughters of Israel. Because of the seriousness of the situation that affects the foundations of religion and faith, I felt the need to respond immediately by return mail.120

Beis Yaakov’s inclusion of philosophical texts in women’s education will have detrimental effects. The schools should return to the old ways of women’s education and minimize the study of Oral Torah. Although both speak in the name of tradition and the H . afez. H . ayyim, this exchange of letters proceeds from polar opposites in h.aredi discourse. On the one side the majority consensus sees great value in the education offered in Beis Yaakov institutions, while on the other, a minority position preserved among the Hungarian immigrant community seeks to limit the education given to women, branding the expansion of girls’ education as the beginning of the destruction of the remnant of faithful Jewry. These opposing views also betray the importance Jewish society assigned to this issue in the post-war era, not because two of the most influential decisors in Israel disagreed, but because the passionate language and the high emotional charge are so unusual. The authors exchanged letters regarding other matters of Jewish law, for instance the Sabbath laws, but even when they disagreed such strong affect is absent.

Rabbi Joseph Shalom Elyashiv: the “Decisor of the Generation” The debate over women’s education has begun to take on a static, almost behavorial quality – not surprising given that the innovation of Beis Yaakov

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

93

was meant to protect a sacred past from a world that seeks to destroy it, and thus could not be presented as an innovation at all. A dominant halachic decisor in Israel in the last third of the twentieth century, Rabbi Joseph Shalom Elyashiv was known as the “Decisor of the Generation.” Even though most of his power originated from the Lithuanian h.aredi community, his influence extended far beyond it. He served as a judge in the national rabbinic court but published little. Only a few of his responsa appeared in rabbinic journals, and these were collected into a book.121 The editor of the responsa published a series of volumes entitled He’arot (notes), summaries of lessons from the daily Talmud lesson conducted in the Me’ah She’arim neighborhood in Jerusalem over many years. One of the volumes was devoted to summaries of lectures on tractate Sotah, and there R. Elyashiv addresses Torah study for women.122 He cites Maimonides stating that the main prohibition is against studying the Oral Torah, and although in the Talmud the words of Ben Azai represent a position of the sages, he emphasizes that one should not rule based on this, since there are a number of Tanaim that agreed with the position of R. Eli’ezer that women should not study. R. Elyashiv finds difficulty in the position of the Maharil, who wondered why Tavi, the slave of R. Gamliel, was taught Torah, since a slave has the same status as a woman and therefore may not be taught. R. Elyashiv counters that a woman is forbidden to learn because of her lack of judgment, while a slave is forbidden to learn since learning is the custom of free men. While a slave might be freed, he implies, women are cognitively incapable of studying Torah, an internal flaw with no apparent remedy. Women thus rank lower than slaves, whose impediment to Torah study is an external one. He mentions the option of saying that wise women who know the Torah learned by themselves. Women should be prohibited from learning the Mishnah, he concludes, since this is not in the category of knowledge of Jewish law. He cites the words of Igrot Moshe (Yore De’ah 3:87) as a source permitting, in the case of need, the custom of women learning Torah with Rashi’s commentary, which mainly consists of the Oral and not Written Torah. R. Elyashiv gives a stamp of legitimacy to Beis Yaakov, portraying it as natural to contemporary life in his society, but only if it remains within the prescribed bounds. Women do not belong in the Beit Midrash and should not venture beyond texts like Torah with Rashi’s commentary, which boys learn in elementary school. His brief comment on the talmudic discussion in Sotah mimics the same discourse from the beginning of the century concerning Beis Yaakov, advocating the study of only the most basic texts and warning against any venture into new areas. This rhetorical imitation can be measured in yet another way. I checked a series of books of novellae from h.aredi yeshivas to see the response of learners to the issue in tractate Sotah. Published in very limited runs, these books exert little influence, but they still reflect popular viewpoints regarding talmudic analysis and current ideology. They echo the basic canonical sources

94

Women’s education in h.aredi society

discussed in chapter one, along with a few from this chapter. They do not exceed the boundaries of the discussion presented here, and they reflect the same degree of reluctant acceptance of Beis Yaakov institutions.123

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Conclusion Women’s religious education became a fact of Orthodox Jewish life. After the Second World War, h.aredi society built itself around the learners’ society, which required women with the ideological stamina to accept the hardship of full-time employment as well as traditional domestic duties. The old debates on women’s education were long forgotten and Beis Yaakov is portrayed as an eternal part of Orthodoxy. While in the pre-war years Beis Yaakov encountered some opposition, the eventual approval of the rabbinic leadership helped the schools in the post-war era become a fundamental and natural part of h.aredi society. The rationale for Beis Yaakov is that women are not a part of the core of Torah learning: the realm of the Talmud remains a masculine dominion, but women are granted access to some Jewish texts. Despite its depiction as integral to Orthodox society, after almost a century in existence, Beis Yaakov is still portrayed as an ad hoc institution. This paradoxical argument has persevered perhaps because there is no need to provide temporary measures with staunch halachic rationales. Considering how many generations of women have passed through the Beis Yaakov system, it is obviously here to stay, but the rhetoric can avoid the pitfalls of dealing with women as a class merely by appealing to the “temporary” and concentrating instead on condemning a dangerously secular world where such measures are necessary. Attitudes toward Beis Yaakov and its curriculum stem from differently weighted assumptions about the nature of women. Emotional rather than intellectual, women are gentle creatures of weak will in need of protection. Proponents of Beis Yaakov seek to protect women and their Jewish identity from secularization by teaching them a limited number of texts. One of the reasons these stereotypes of women are such a popular trope among proponents of Beis Yaakov is that emphasizing them suggests that this new education is simply not going to change anything. Teaching girls Torah restores an idealized status quo, in reality the status ante quo back in Eastern Europe when all was right with the world. The opposition to Beis Yaakov – mostly of Hungarian origin – holds to the same stereotypes of women as emotional and weak-willed creatures, but also bereft of the requisite cognitive abilities: they are ontologically incapable of learning Torah. Introducing them to deep texts will lead them to heresy. The Rebbe of Tsanz goes furthest of all, reducing women to biology: rather than protecting women through Torah, he wishes to protect Torah from women’s impurity.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

95

R. Vozner, the Rebbe of Tsanz, and others who follow them vigorously oppose Torah study by women, even basic knowledge that does not approach the breadth and depth required in the yeshiva. Decisors who sprang from the Hungarian h.asidic position and moved toward an extreme Orthodoxy saw change as a peril to traditional ways. Elaborate explanations are contrived to increase the severity of the prohibition of Torah study for women and narrow the exceptions. Rabbi Menah.em Pollack, a former student of Rabbi Akiva Sofer in Pressburg (Bratislava) and a descendant of the Biliz.er rabbinic family, exemplifies this Hungarian Orthodox position. After citing the laws of yih.ud (seclusion, laws prohibiting a man and woman who are not related to be alone in a closed space), he writes: Because we have not seen these old rabbis in Hungary who acted thus, and who presumably were wary for these reasons, whether because of yih.ud or because of “one who looks at women etc.” And if it is true that rabbis in Germany acted thus, it seems that they accepted this from their forefathers and relied on those who rule that if his wife is present there is no prohibition of yih.ud even when his business is with women, and regarding “one who looks at women etc.” It is possible that they were not concerned in a situation where the intention was to benefit the public, because “no sin will come to the hand of one who benefits the public.”124 The ultimate answer is an appeal to local tradition: women did not study Torah in Hungary and that should end any discussion on the matter. Tamar El-Or calls h.aredi women “enlightened and ignorant.”125 They have knowledge of Judaism, but the rudimentary nature of their instruction is designed to leave them outside positions of influence. Iris Brown comes to a similar conclusion when she analyzes the writings of R. Wolf, the ideologue of women’s education in h.aredi society. She finds that he supported an educational system that strengthened belief among girls to meet the challenges of the modern world, and allowed enlisting them in a h.aredi revolution, i.e. the society of learners. With the Rebbe of Tsanz, she found a similar phenomenon even if the nature of his community required some variations.126 The reality of El-Or’s “enlightenment and ignorance” describes a woman with enough ideological reserves to function in daily life, but no more. The same enlightened and ignorant woman is excluded from engaging Torah. The educational system provides practical knowledge of Jewish law and a faith that grounds the purpose of a young h.aredi woman: to support a husband who studies in the society of learners. The history emerging from these texts shows that the rabbinic establishment did not initiate a response to the Jewish public discussion of the need for change in girls’ education, much less offer a proactive solution. Only after

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

96

Women’s education in h.aredi society

several decades, following the activity of a lone activist in Cracow, a seed grew, thanks to the support of neo-Orthodox in Germany. Only later did the movement receive active support from Eastern European leadership. Halachic responsa reluctantly accept Jewish studies as offered by Beis Yaakov, which was education designed as “maintenance.” Not only was there no Orthodox initiative, the eventual response – several decades late – indicates no change in the core values and perception of women, but rather an unchangingly vehement objection to modernity according to the fundamental h.aredi narrative. There is no better characterization of women’s role in this battle with modernity than El-Or’s paradox of enlightenment and ignorance.

Notes 1 See: Friedman, Hah.evrah Hah.aredit – Mekorot, Megamot, Tahalikhim (Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 1991), 10–16. 2 Friedman, Hah.evrah Hah.aredit, 80-85. For the stringency controversy see Amit Gil-Bayz, “Shikulei Idiologyah Vehalachah Beheter Mekhirah Ubeimuz.o al-yedei Keren Kayemet Leyisrael Umedinat Yisrael,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2006, 39–51. 3 Friedman, Hah.evra Hah.aredit, 6–8. 4 For historical development, see Ze’ev Safrai and Avi Sagi, eds., Bein samkhut Le’otonomyah Bemasoret Yisrael (Tel Aviv: Hakibuz. Hameuh.ad, 1997); Gershon Backon, “Da’at Torah Veh.evlei Mashih.,” 84–98; and Lawrence Kaplan, “Da’at Torah – Tfisa Modernit shel Hasamkhut Hahilchatit,” in Bein samkhut Leotonomyah Bemasoret Yisrael,105–245. 5 Friedman, Hah.evra Hah.aredit, 72–73. 6 Adam Ferziger, Exclusion and Hierarchy: Orthodoxy, Nonobservance, and the Emergence of Modern Jewish Identity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005), 13–14. Also Charlotte Baum, “What Made Yetta Work? The Economic Role of Eastern European Jewish Women in the Family,” Response: A Contemporary Jewish Review 18 (1973), 8–32. 7 Friedman, Hah.evrah Hah.aredit, 75–77. 8 Friedman, Hah.evrah Hah.aredit, 75–77. 9 For h.aredim in the Israeli workforce, see Nurit Shtadler: “Lehitparnes o Leh.akhot Lenes: Hamilkud Hah.aredi Vehishtakfuto Beyah.as Torah Ve’avodah,” in H . aredim Yisraelim: Hishtalvut Belo Tmi’ah?, Imanu’el Siv.an and K . immy Caplan eds. (Tel Aviv: Makhon V.an-Lir biyerushalayim, 2003), 32–55. 10 H . aredi historiography also counts “Nez.ah. Yisrael” in Petah. Tikva under the administration of the representative of the H . aredi Union in Germany, Rabbi Moshe Auerbakh, in the early days of independent education. Aaron Soraski, Yovel Lah.inukh Ha’az.ma’i (Bnei Brak: Histadrut Morei Agudat Yisrael, 1983), 20–22. In this context a school for girls was also established in Petah. Tikva, 27. For his life and establishment of the school: Moshe Oyerbakh, Zikhronot Harav Moshe Oyerbakh (Jerusalem: Hamaayan, 1982); Samuel Abraham Oyerbakh, Toldot Harav Doktor Moshe Oyerbakh (Beer Sheva: n.p., 2000). 11 Soraski’s book includes an account by one of its founders who denies any direct connection between the Beis Yaakov system and the Tiberias institutions. The establishment of the system made waves, however, encouraging the establishment of a similar school in the Land of Israel, Yovel Lah.inuch Ha’az.ma’i, 28.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s education in h.aredi society

97

12 Menah.em Friedman, H . evrah Vedat: Ha’ortodoxyah Halo-Tziyonit Be’eretz-Yisrael 1918–1936 (Jerusalem: Yad Yitzh.ak Ben-Tzvi, 1978), 253-86. The Beis Yaakov institutions in Eastern Europe were influenced by German Orthodoxy, among them Jewish women with doctorates. Deborah Weissman, “H . inukh Banot Datiyot Beyerushalayim Bitkufat Hamandat Habriti: Hitmasdutan Vehitgabshutan shel H . amesh Ideologyot H . inukhiyot,” unpub. PhD diss., Hebrew University 1994, 86. 13 Weissman, “H . inukh Banot Datiyot Beyerushalayim,” 257. 14 An early modern interpretation of large parts of the Hebrew bible. 15 Friedman, H . evrah vedat, 257–59. Weissman, “H . inukh Banot Datiyot Beyerushalayim,” 260–61. 16 Weissman, “H . inukh Banot Datiyot Beyerushalayim,” 262. 17 Weissman, “H . inukh Banot Datiyot Beyerushalayim,” 358–60. 18 Z.vi Yavrov, Ma’ase Ish, vol. 3, 2nd ed. (Bnei Brak: n.p., 2000). 19 Benjamin Brown, H . azon Ish: Haposek, Hama’amin Umanhig Hamahapecha Hah.aredit (Jerusalem: Magness, 2011), 673–75. 20 Brown, H . azon Ish, 298–99. Also see: Yiz.h.ak Cohen, Harav Meir Simh.a HaCohen (Or Same’ah) Medvinsk Umishnato Hahilchatit-Mishpatit, unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2005, 324. 21 For the relationship between the political and sociological activities of R. Karelitz, see Benjamin Brown, “Mehitbadlut Politit Lehitbaz.rut Tarbutit—Hah.azon Ish Ukviat Darkha shel Hayahadut Hah.aredit Be’erez. Yisrael (1933–54),” in Shnei Every Hagesher: Dat Umedinah Breshit Darkha shel Yisrael, Z.vi Z.ameret and Mordekhay Bar-On eds. (Jerusalem: Yad Yiz.h.ak Ben Z.vi, 2002), 364–413. 22 Friedman, “Haisha Hah.aredit,” 282–83. 23 There is a short hagiographic biographical description in the memorial book for Wolf ’s brother, who also taught in the Bnei Brak Seminar, no ed., Ish Haeshkolot – Sefer Zikharon Lez.vi Binyamin Wolf (Bnei Brak: n.p., 2006), 57–98. The Wolf family is described with an emphasis on its h.aredi nature at the expense of the family’s general education. 24 Moshe Oyerbakh, Zikhronot Harav Moshe Oyerbakh (Jerusalem: Hamaayan, 1982). 25 Joseph Abraham Wolf, Hatkufa Ubeaayoteha – Iyunim (Bnei Brak: 1985), 256–60. 26 Wolf, Hatkufa Ubeaayoteha – Iyunim, 265. 27 Wolf, Hatkufa Ubeaayoteha, 266. Compare the position of the H . azon Ish: Brown, H . azon Ish, 439–357. 28 Joseph Abraham Wolf, Deot Umidot (Bnei Brak: 1985), 176. 29 Iris Brown, “Talmud Torah Lenashim Batfisa Haortodoxit Bame’ah Haserim,” unpub. MA thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1997, 89. 30 Wolf, Hatkufa Ubeaayoteha – Iyunim, 279. 31 The author mentions his intent to publish a second edition with additional responsa on the topic which he received from the religious leaders there (1). 32 Benjamin Shzeransky, Kunteres Hazikaron Leyom Hashanah Haesrim Leptirat Harav Meir Shz.ransky z”l (Tel Aviv: n.p., 1993), 9. 33 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir: Shu”t Ubeyrurim Beinyan Limud Hatorah Lenashim (Tel Aviv: 1941), 3. Dr. Cohen, a head of Agudat Israel during the war, died shortly after sending the letter and before the book was published. 34 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 4. 35 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 5. 36 Shz.ransky, “Berurim Bdavr Limud Torah Lenashim,” Sefer Hayovel Ha’esrim Veh.amesh Shel Beyet Hasefer Vehaseminar Lemorot Beyet Ya’akov Betel-Aviv (Tel Aviv: n.p., 1961), 103. 37 Shz.ransky, “Berurim Bdavr Limud Torah Lenashim,” 104. 38 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 8.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

98

Women’s education in h.aredi society

39 Shz.ransky, “Berurim Bdavr Limud Torah Lenashim,” 104. 40 Shz.ransky, “Berurim Bdavr Limud Torah Lenashim,” 105–8. 41 Friedman describes, for example, the issue of English studies in Tel Aviv. The parents of the Agudat Yisrael school in Tel Aviv insisted on English lessons. On the advice of the Gerrer Rebbe, the English lessons were held, but outside regular classrooms. Friedman, Hah.evra Hah.aredit – Mekorot, Megamot, Tahalichim, 267–68. 42 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 41–46. A survey of the early days of Beis Yaakov institutions in Tel Aviv, without mentioning the Seminary of Wolf or the H . azon Ish. 43 For his theological views see Benjamin Brown, “Raz.on Amiti O Yez.er Hara? Tfisat Hah.erut shel Shnei Hugim H . aredim,” Hagut Bah.inukh Hayehudi 1 (1999), 97–125. 44 Z.vi Veinman, Mekatoviz. AD 5 Iyar—Prakim Betoldot Agudat Yisrael Vehayahdut Hah.aredit Perspektivot H . adashot (Jerusalem: Vatikin, 1995), 17–36. 45 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 16–24. 46 Zalman Soroz.kin, Moznayim Lamishpat, (Jerusalem: 1965) section 42. See also Shz.ransky, “Berurim Bdavr Limud Torah Lenashim,” 110–15. 47 Zalman Soroz.kin, Hade’ah Vehadibur, (Warsaw: 1937) 48 Soroz.kin, Moznayim Lamishpat, section 42. This is the same text that was published in Or Hameir. 49 Soroz.kin, Hade’ah Vehadibur, 298. 50 Soroz.kin, Hade’ah Vehadibur, 300–301. 51 Soroz.kin, Hade’ah Vehadibur, 301. 52 David Ellenson & Ellisa Ben-Naim, “Women and the Study of Torah: A Responsum by Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin of Jerusalem,” Nashim 4 (2001), 119–39. They view this responsum as significant for the formation of the Beis Yaakov system, reflecting the splendor that would result in women’s colleges by learning Talmud. Having significant weight, it would influence later decisors. This claim lacks precision, in that the examples they offer include citations from books of collected halachic works such as those of Elyakim Ellinson and similar books in English, which are at most halachic collections. 53 Tuvia Yehuda Tavyomi, Tal Leyisrael, 3rd ed. (Bnei Brak: 2006), 287–99. 54 Tuvia Yehuda Tavyomi, Erez. Tovah, (Jerusalem: 1947). 55 He appeared in nearly every issue of the periodical Yavneh published in Lvov in 1929. He was also one of the main writers in the newsletter Diglenu, published by Agudat Yisrael in conjunction with Agudat Z.e’irei Emunei Yisrael in Warsaw 1921–23, a h.aredi literary collection dedicated to the concerns of young h.aredim. 56 Tavyomi, Tal Leyisrael, 17–20. 57 Tavyomi, Tal Leyisrael, 290. 58 Tavyomi, Tal Leyisrael, 290. 59 Ibid. 60 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 42. 61 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 25–26. 62 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 27–28. 63 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 29. He notes that no one had ever interpreted the Talmud in that way, although R. Nathanson had a similar interpretation. 64 Tavi, the slave of Rabban Gamliel, appears in talmudic literature as a proper and wise man who acted modestly, as opposed to most slaves who were assumed to be licentious. 65 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 31. 66 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 32–33. 67 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 42. 68 Shz.ransky, Or Hameir, 43–50. 69 Meir Stalevitch, Mbeit-Meir, vol. 4 (Warsaw and Jerusalem: 1913–47), 177–79.

Women’s education in h.aredi society

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

100 101

99

Stalevitch, Mbeit-Meir, 177. Stalevitch, Mbeit-Meir, 179. Moses Dov Velner, H . emdat Z.vi, vol. 2 (Ashkelon: 1973–85), section 8. Velner, H . emdat Z.vi, section 8, 24. Velner, H . emdat Z.vi, section 8, 27–28. Velner, H . emdat Z.vi, section 8, 31–32. Velner, H . emdat Z.vi, section 8, 34–35. Natan Geshtetner, Lehorot Natan, vol. 2, (Bnei Brak: 1977). YD section 88. Shraga Feivush Schnaabalg, Shraga Meir, vol. 7, (Bney Brak: 1993), sect. 26. There is no scholarly biography of R. Shakh. For a h.aredi biography, see: Asher Bergman, Maran Harav Shakh (Bnei Brak: n.p., 2006). Benjamin Brown, “Harav Shakh: Ha’araz.at Haruh., Bikoret Haleumiyut Vehakhraot Politiyot Bimdinat Yisrael,” in Dat Uleumiyut Beyisrael Vehamizrah. Hatikhon, Nerri Horowitz, ed. (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2003), 278–342; Eliav Taub, “Manhigut Datit Bama’arekhet Hapolitit: Mehanh.ayah Meruh.ket Lemuravut Pe’ila: Darkhei Hahanhagah shel Harabanim Shakh Veyosef Lehalakha Ulema’ase,” unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2004. For his ideology and influence on h.aredi society, see Avishay Ben-H . aim, Ish Hahashkafa – Haideologya Hah.aredit al-pi Harav Shakh (Jerusalem: Mozaika, 2004). Eliezer Menah.em Shakh, Avi Ezri, vol. 1 (Bnei Brak: 1993), 22a. Shakh, Avi Ezri, vol. 1, 23a. Z.vi Yavrov, “H . ovat Ha’ishah Lihiyot Ezer Leba’ala Ulebanehah Belimud Hatorah,” Yated Ne’eman, Musaf 10 Kislev 1990, 10–11. Binyamin Zilber, Az Nedaberu, vol. 14 (Bney Brak: 1987), section 3. Zilber, Az Nedaberu, vol. 14, section 3. Zilber, Az Nedaberu, vol. 14, section 3. Shmuel Vozner, Shevet Halevi, 3rd ed., vol. 6 (Bney Brak: 2002–8). Yore De’ah, section 150. Vozner, Shevet Halevi, section 150. Vozner, Shevet Halevi, section 150. Vozner, Shevet Halevi, vol. 8, Yore De’ah, section 211. Abraham Rubin, Neharot Eytan, vol. 2, (Reh.ovot: 1999–2002), section 64. Rubin, Neharot Eytan, section 64. Rubin, Neharot Eytan, section 66. Shamai Kehat Gross, Masa Bnei Kehat (Jerusalem: 1982), 29–30. Shamai Kehat Gross, Shevet Hakehati, vol. 2, (Jerusalem: 1988) section 269. Gross, Shevet Hakehati, vol. 2, section 269. Valdenberg, Z.iz. Eli’ezer, vol. 10, section 8. A little about his life was published after his death. Avraham Steinberg, “Yashan Bkli H . adash,” Makor Rishon (April 8, 2007). R. Valdenberg was born on December 31, 1915, and died November 21, 2006. His first book, Devar Eli’ezer (Jerusalem: 1935), addressed innovations and explanations in passages of the Talmud and Maimonides. He later published a series of books on Halacha. Hilkhot Medina’h (Jerusalem: 1952–55) is a three-volume work on the authority of legislators and judges, ruling of kings, and renewal of ordination. Shevitat Hayam (Jerusalem: 1955) addressed the laws of ship travel on the Sabbath. Most of his work can be found in a series of books of responsa known as Z.iz. Eli’ezer (Jerusalem: 1945–58) containing 22 volumes. For a discussion of his views on the relationship between Halacha and medicine see, Ido Rechnitz, “Teokratya Vedemokratya Bemishnato shel Harav Eli’ezer Yehudah Valdenberg,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2012. Eli’ezer Valdenberg, Z.iz. Eliezer, vol. 9, (Jerusalem: 1967) section 3a. Valdernberg, Z.iz. Eli’ezer, vol. 9, section 3a.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

100

Women’s education in h.aredi society

102 Valdernberg, Z.iz. Eli’ezer, vol. 9, section 3a. 103 Valdernberg, Z.iz. Eli’ezer, vol. 10, section 9. 104 For a rabbinic biography see Aharon Soraski, Lapid Ha’esh (Bnei Brak: 1997–2003), 2 vols. He was born January 10, 1905, and died June 18, 1994. No research on him has been published, but his father’s grandfather, Rabbi Halberstam, was one of the most important figures in the formation of Hungarian Orthodoxy after the time of R. Moses Sofer. Halberstam, who also influenced his great-grandson, was discussed in Iris Brown’s dissertation, “Harav H . aim Metsanz: Darchei Psikato al Reka Olamo Hara’ayoni Ve’etgarei Zmano,” unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 1994. 105 Jekuthiel Judah Halberstam, Divrei Yaz.iv, Yore De’ah, vol. 2 (Netanya: 1998), sections 139–40. 106 For an analysis of this responsum in terms of the Divrei Yetziv’s approach to women’s impurity, see: Iris Brown, “Tom’at Hanida Uma’amad Haishah: Psikato shel Hadmor Metsanz-Klausenberg Kemikre Mivh.an,” Da’at 61 (2007), 113–33. 107 Shulh.an Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 195. See also Yedidyah Dineri, “Minhagei Tumat Hanida – Mekoram Vehishtalshelotam,” Tarbitz 49 (1980), 302–24. 108 Shulh.an Arukh, Orah. H . ayyim 88. See Yedidyah Dineri, “H . ilul Hakodesh al-yedei Nida Utumat Ezra,” Te’eudah 3 (1983), 17–37. 109 Dineri, “H . ilul Hakodesh,” 17–23. 110 For instance Mishna Brura, 88:5–8; Binyamin Ze’ev, section 153. 111 His source is in the responsa of Trumat ha-Deshen, 132. “And see also the laws of menstruating women of my holy teacher my uncle Rabbi Aaron … there are women who refrain and those who do so are proper.” He notes that a similar position is adduced in the name of Sefer ha-Miktzo’ot in the book Sha’arei Dura. 112 A man who has a seminal emission is known as a baal keri. As such he is in an impure status. One of the decrees of the prophet Ezra was that a baal keri may only learn Torah after immersion. This decree was nullified because it brought about desecration of Torah study. See the Tur and the Shulh.an Arukh, Orah. H . ayyim 88. 113 Halberstam, Divrei Yaz.iv, Yore De’ah, vol. 2, section 139. 114 Halberstam, Divrei Yaz.iv, Yore De’ah, vol. 2, section 139. 115 Halberstam, Divrei Yaz.iv, Orah. H . ayyim, vol. 1, section 5. 116 Gertner, “Maz.ahs Mashine.” 117 Much has been written about Maimonides’ esoteric writing in Guide for the Perplexed. Among others, see Aviezer Ravitzky, Iyunim Maymoniyim (Jerusalem: Shoken, 2006), 59–80. 118 Valdenberg, Z.iz. Eli’ezer, Vol. 10, section 8. 119 Halberstam, Divrei Yaz.iv, YD, vol. 2, section 140. 120 Halberstam, Divrei Yatziv, YD, vol. 2, section 140. 121 Joseph Shalom Elyashiv, Kovez. Tshuvut (Jerusalem: 2000). 122 Joseph Shalom Elyashiv, He’arot – Masekhet Sotah (Jerusalem: 2000) on Sotah 21b. 123 H . idushim Ubi’urim – Nedarim, Nazir, Sotah (Bnei . ayyim Shaul Greiniman, H Brak: 2000) the author is a well-known Rabbi in the Litvish community in Israel. He is the nephew of the H . azon Ish. Shmuel Rotshild, Peyrot Hate’ena (Bnei Brak: 2001); Yaakov Shmuel Markus, Minh.at Ya’akov (N.Y: 1997); David Kasel, Darchei David (Jerusalem 1990). The author was a head of a yeshiva in the US and a teacher in the Itri Yeshiva in Israel, and a social critic of the h.aredi world. See: Kimmy Caplan, “‘Yesh Rikavon Amiti Bah.evra Shlanu Vez.arich Lehakir et Haemet’: Bikoret Az.mit Bah.evrah Hah.aredit Beyisrael,” in Miutim Zarim Shonim: Kvuz.ut Shulayim Bahistoryah, Shulamit Wellkov ed. (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 2001), 317–27.

Women’s education in h.aredi society

101

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

H . aim Shlomo Rosental, A’ira Shah.ar (Jerusalem 2001). Yitzh.ak Braysh, Mishamnei Ha’arez. (Lakewood, N.J.: 1995); Aharon David Goldberg, Avodat David, (Jerusalem: 1995); Eliyaho Gombo, Mei Be’er, 1st ed. (Netanya: 1997); Shmuel David Friedman, Sdeh Tsofim al Masechet Nazir Sotah (New York: 2001). 124 Menah.em Pollack, “Shu”t Be’inyan Birkhat Erusin Vetalmud Torah Lenashim,” Yeshurun 2 (1997), 214–18. 125 Tamar El-Or, Educated and Ignorant: Ultraorthodox Women and Their World. 126 Brown, “Talmud Torah Lenashim Batfisa Haortodoxit Bame’ah Haesrim,” 76–82.

4

Torah study for women in the New World

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The American experience

During the era of the great immigration, a process began that shaped the character and boundaries of Orthodox Jewish society in the United States. This society began a complex relationship with the modern world, creating a unique system of checks and balances to regulate inevitable change. This process, beginning in the late nineteenth century and continuing after the Holocaust, transformed synagogues, the rabbinic establishment, educational systems, and the status of women. Before the mass immigration to America, most Jews in America were of German origin. Although many became highly successful businessmen, they kept strong ties to Germany. They read in German, had German clubs, schools taught German, the business elite vacationed and conducted business in Germany. These Jews also formed the base for the Reform movement.1 Quite different was the wave of immigration that began in 1880 and ended with the European onset of the First World War: the vast majority came not from Germany, but Eastern Europe. Among the 55 million immigrants who came to America in those years were an estimated 3,378,000 Jews, mostly younger families with few economic resources. They found work in several occupations: street vendors, the scrap metal trade, and especially in the textile industry. Textile businesses in poor immigrant neighborhoods were no more than sweatshops. Pay was low, job security non-existent, working conditions were dismal. Sanitation was inadequate and the poor, airless design of tenements led to accidents and sickness, both physical and mental. Immigrants chose this work, however, for several reasons: they did not have good information about the job market, they brought no capital with them to start their own businesses, and many Jews also had had previous experience in textiles. It was not necessary to speak English; one could remain within the original ethnic circle. Many family members worked together and all families worked, which helped pay the expenses of immigration. Most of the employers were also Jewish, often from the same communities in Eastern Europe. This employer-worker symbiosis resulted in an ample, expendable workforce at low pay, but also created conditions prime for entrepreneurship. That being said, advancement to more lucrative professions was marginal. Improvement mainly came by moving to small retail, clerkship,

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The American experience

103

or sales in the same factories where most immigrants worked. Only in the first decade of the twentieth century were immigrants or their children able to enter more skilled professions. This immigration also created Orthodox society within American Judaism. During that era, Jews began to deal with questions of identity: Were they American or Jews? Were they Jewish Americans or American Jews? Thinkers like Horace Kallen and Mordecai Kaplan thought that nationality was strictly the result of American citizenship, not a common ethnic element. The American nation is built from a variety of ethnic groups that maintain their uniqueness, joining their voices to the symphony of the American nation. This multiculturalism was radically different from the commonly held view that American identity is forged in a melting pot where immigrants lose their identity and assume a monolithic American one. It is also worthwhile to remember that in American society, there is some advantage to being an Anglo-Saxon Protestant. While wishing to maintain a unique identity, economic reality created a need to be in constant contact with the non-Jewish world. That caused, to one degree or another, an adaptation to the perceptions and praxis of American society. The first generation of Orthodox were immigrants in an urban society, but with Orthodox cultural traditions brought intact from the shtetlekh (Yiddish for small town with a Jewish population) of Eastern Europe. Small synagogues founded in immigrant neighborhoods were first and foremost social meeting places and only then places of worship. Charles Liebman points out the relatively small number of mikvaot (ritual baths) and religious schools in New York City in the early twentieth century.2 Besides Orthodox Jews, there were also large numbers of marginal Jews designated Orthodox because they used the services of the Orthodox rabbinate even though their adherence to the miz.vot was only partial.3 Orthodox society between the world wars already showed signs of Americanization: English speaking rabbis, for example, and the growing importance of English homilies instead of Yiddish.4 The image of the rabbi fashioned in Yeshiva University in New York after Bernard Revel began to lead the university was that of a rabbi who walked in the American pace and could relate to young American Jews.5 The new synagogues built by the second generation of immigrants were large and ornate, quite similar to Reform temples, and many “unaesthetic” customs were abolished, such as selling the honor of reading the Torah during services or opening of the ark.6 Unlike the small synagogues of the Lower East Side,7 the new synagogues put great importance on the structure of communal prayer. Services began around 9:00, the sermon around 11:15, there was a dress code, a cantor conducted services with minimal participation by the congregation in order to maintain uniformity. Another innovation was a separate service for children and a Jewish Sunday School in the afternoon. Weissman Joselit identifies the most explicit form of Americanization of the Orthodox synagogue as the founding of auxiliary clubs like men’s brotherhoods and women’s auxiliary committees.8

104

The American experience

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education in the New World The challenges of Jewish education in general and the education of women specifically were present in Jewish communal life from a very early stage. In the second half of the nineteenth century young Jewish women were torn into a myriad of identities: feminine, American and Jewish. It was not clear which took precedence and while Jewish women had access to high school and post high school education there was little to no Jewish education.9 Secular education was seen as a means of social mobility and was centered around a Western cultural ethos,10 and it created a sense of “Americaness.”11 Religious education was lacking mainly in light of the growing participation of women in Reform congregations. Religious education was perceived to be the domain of the mother and only rarely did parents pay special attention to women’s Jewish education.12 Jewish immigrant women were able to integrate into American society with relative ease. The rapid process of industrialization had brought with it a dramatic change for women in the job market. Despite criticism for abandoning traditional domestic roles, women started to work in factories. While women workers often faced hardship and abuse, this process eventually led to rethinking women’s roles in the public sphere. Acculturation to American society quickly led to assimilation, an issue heavily debated in American Judaism almost from the very beginning. Specifically Jewish education emerged as a particularly important response. Yet given the economic situation and a free public education system, there were reports that in the entire Lower East Side there were only 8,616 boys and 361 girls studying in religious institutions in 1904. This led one of the philanthropic organizations aiding Jewish immigrants, HIAS, to create more institutions for Jewish education for girls, albeit less extensive than those created for boys. In 1917, only twenty four per cent of Jewish children in the city had some kind of Jewish education.13 The lack of Jewish education contrasted sharply with a more thorough Americanization. Women were at the forefront of this process since they were targeted by consumerism and a leisure culture.14 Female immigrant’s aspirations often focused on education, and a significant percentage of Jewish women attended night schools. In 1925, for example, a full seventy per cent of all night-school students were Jewish women. Until 1934, at least half of all female students were Jewish.15 This acculturation of women to American society is even more apparent in research conducted in 1943. On average, 13.3 per cent of Jewish girls attended Jewish schools. This research was based on a survey in five major cities that found that where there was a Jewish Sunday School, the number of female students was lower in Jewish day schools, presumably since parents thought girls, unlike boys, only needed a limited Jewish education. In Sunday schools and schools with instruction conducted in Yiddish, however, female students were in the majority. Both the Sunday schools in Reform temples and Orthodox supplementary schools in the afternoons (Talmudei Torah) suffered from similar problems

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The American experience

105

such as untrained teachers, insufficient resources and communal politics.16 While there were some schools that offered a double curriculum, they were scarce and focused on Hebrew curriculum.17 Tzvi Sharfshteyin, one of the first historians to research Jewish education, sees this is as a continuation of a Jewish heritage where boys were instructed in religious studies and girls study in Yiddish with only very rudimentary instruction in religion.18 The inability of the Jewish educational system to combat acculturation and assimilation was deeply rooted within the system itself.19 There was significant danger of assimilation, and women’s education needed to be high on the community’s priority list. Several authors debate this issue in Orthodox journals published in the US in the early 1930s. In the journal Hamesila, an article dealt with the decline of adherence to family purity laws. The author, Rabbi Yiz.h.ak Shmidman, links this phenomenon to the lack of women’s education.20 The author lists at length prominent Jewish women who influenced Jewish leaders, such as Miriam the sister of Moses, and Rah.el, the wife of Rabbi Akiva. Indeed, the continuity of the Jewish people depends on women: Jewish women are the basis of the Jewish soul. He then suggests the establishment of religious schools for girls and laments the absence of these schools even in Orthodox neighborhoods in New York like Williamsburg and Borough Park. Schools for girls should be established to teach Torah and daily Jewish practice along with secular subjects and Hebrew beyond what was needed to understand the prayers. Funding should come from the Jewish federations that mainly fund hospitals and homes for the elderly. He also suggests the creation of a teacher’s seminary for the graduates of these schools. The curriculum, which he briefly discusses, should include Torah, Agadah, Mishnah, ethics, and practical Jewish customs. A complementary opinion by Rabbi Shmu’el Dov Maharshak was printed in Yiddish in the Jewish newspaper Morgen Journal and later translated into Hebrew.21 In his article “Common Mistake,” he claims that the perceived prohibition of women’s Torah study results from a misunderstanding of the Mishnah. Rabbi Eli’ezer’s objection to Torah study by women is grounded in his fear for the modesty of Jewish women: Eli’ezer thought obligating women to Torah study would lead to co-ed schools with the inherent enthusiasm of Torah study leading to undesirable mingling of the sexes. He reads the term tiflut as “companionship.” Rabbi Eli’ezer’s objection was thus only to obligating women to study Torah.

Rabbi H . aim Hirshenzon: a call for modern and liberal Orthodoxy Although Rabbi H . aim Hirshenzon had no students during his lifetime, several decades after his death his books have been re-examined, not because of his influence, but because of the unusual positions he took toward fundamental questions relevant to Jewish society in the twentieth century. Recent

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

106

The American experience

research allows a fairly comprehensive view of his thought on one central topic: Judaism and modernity. Ancillary to this primary issue, R. Hirshenzon discussed the relationship between religion and nationalism, the proper attitude to secularists, the role of stringencies in religious life, the proper relationship with non-Jewish society, and also the role of women. Along the spectrum of opinions in the 1930s, his views on women’s Torah study lie decidedly at the radical end. R. Hirshenzon was born in Eretz Israel on August 31, 1857, and died in Hoboken, New Jersey, on September 15, 1935. His father, Yitzh.ak Hirshenzon, was a supporter of H . ovevei Z.ion from Belorussia, who went to Z.fat and later moved to Jerusalem.22 After learning Torah and initially trying to go into business,23 R. Hirshenzon founded a journal that was published for three years called Hamisdarona that focused on the research of Halacha and its relationship to the modern world.24 His ideology caused the more radical part of the Jerusalem community to boycott him. Coupled with financial difficulties, this led him to leave the country. Around 1896 he left for Turkey, where he was the principal of Jewish schools and also joined the Mizrah.i.25 Around 1904, he came to the US and officiated as a rabbi in Hoboken until his death. He was involved in educational activities and wrote many books discussing issues relevant to Jewish nationalism and the Zionist movement. He began to develop a variety of ideas that combined democracy with Halacha, and suggested a model with which he wanted to fashion Halacha by adopting characteristics of American-style democracy.26 This was a new attempt to craft a religious world view that would incorporate democracy as a value with religious significance, not as a mere external forced on religion.

R. Hirshenzon’s approach to women’s status R. Hirshenzon felt that the low status of women was the result of historical circumstance. Since these circumstances are not static, moral and economic development necessitates a halachic change.27 He claimed that the sages expressed an ideal approach to women. The low social status of women and the demeaning attitude toward them is not a result of halachic doctrines, but rather their socio-economic status. Halacha does not dictate this socioeconomic reality: it only relates and responds to it.28 R. Hirshenzon thus saw the question of women’s roles in society as a discussion that stems from political theory and morality, which necessitates an innovative halachic interpretation. An extensive rabbinic debate about women’s right to vote during the mandate period in the 1920s left its mark in R. Hirshenzon’s writings. The elections were to be held to a semi-autonomous parliament called Kneset Yisrael, established by the British authorities and given the task of representing the Jews under mandate control. Besides the Zionist parties, Orthodox parties also took part in the elections. When the leaders of the Zionist movement wished to allow women to vote and to be elected to this institution, there were many

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The American experience

107

protests from the rabbinic establishment, both from the non-Zionist Orthodox and from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook, the Zionist Chief Rabbi. Although religious Zionist parties did finally support women’s right to vote, leaders of the Mizrah.i had assumed that R. Kook would be amenable. They were surprised to find him vehemently opposed to what he saw as the destruction of the foundations of Judaism through an immodest mixture of the genders.29 R. Hirshenzon had an extensive exchange of letters with R. Kook urging him to support women’s right to vote. R. Hirshenzon explains that reluctance to acknowledge the changes in the role of women in modern society distances the public from the Torah. Thus his interpretation must depart from traditional halachic views of women in positions of authority. R. Hirshenzon adduces the exegesis in the Sifre on the verse: “one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee” (Deut. 17:15). Since the verse mentions a king, the exegesis precludes a queen. R. Hirshenzon deviates from the plain meaning of the Sifre and interprets this exegesis as saying that there is no need to appoint a queen if the wife of a king has died. There is only a commandment to have a king, not a king and a queen. R. Hirshenzon went against the opinion of Maimonides on this issue.30 He asserts that there is a moral obligation to give women the right to vote and thus no need to heed R. Kook’s warning. R. Hirshenzon unequivocally supports formal equality of men and women.

Women’s Torah study in the writings of R. Hirshenzon One of the earliest discussions attracting his attention, women’s Torah study soon found its way into R. Hirshenzon’s journal.31 The attitudes towards women in traditional Jewish society, he writes, are a useful weapon in the hands of the enemies of religion. The words of the sages that appear chauvinistic need to be reappraised in their correct context and actually express an egalitarian position of respect toward women. R. Hirshenzon says that he aims to discuss these only apparently chauvinistic expressions and explain them properly rather than the superficial external manner in which they had previously been understood.32 His discussion begins with the interpretation of the Mishnah in tractate Sotah. The Talmud agrees with Ben Azai, R. Hirshenzon writes, since the Talmud refers to his position as the position of the sages in the plural. That no other interpreter of the Talmud agrees with this position apparently is of no concern. He tries to strengthen his position by citing the Mishnah in tractate Nedarim, where one version says that someone who has vowed not to take anything from another can still teach that person’s sons and daughters Torah and accept a salary for it. The primary focus of the discussion is on the distinction R. Hirshenzon makes between the father’s obligation to educate his children and the

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

108

The American experience

commandment to study the Torah. He defines the concept of education, which is similar for Jews and non-Jews: it includes the fundamentals of religion and national identity and in the Jewish case, also the Hebrew language. Education also includes acquiring the skills necessary to earning a livelihood. This kind of education is the same for men and women. The study of the Torah, however, is a different matter. It is a commandment that focuses on the Torah given by God through Moses. R. Hirshenzon says that the commandment to study the Torah refers to learning the spelling, the shape of the letters, etc. This field of knowledge, known as the Mesorah, is not mandatory for women. R. Hirshenzon bases his position on the Talmud in tractate H . agiga that women came to listen to biblical texts in the ceremony of Hakhel rather than discuss them exhaustively. R. Hirshenzon also sees Rabbi Eli’ezer’s prohibition as forbidding the study of the Mesorah. When interpreting the saying of Rabbi Eli’ezer in the Yerushalmi that women’s wisdom is only in the loom, R. Hirshenzon resorts to metaphor: Rabbi Eli’ezer was not referring to the loom in a literal sense, but rather the wisdom of the loom is the wisdom of people all over the world to earn their livelihood through their skills. This wisdom includes conducting oneself according to the ways of justice and equity.33 R. Hirshenzon also warns of a potentially problematic outcome of the study of Torah. He says that even for men, the study of the Mesorah or for that matter, any kind of halachic decisions based on the phrasing of the Torah and the Talmud (Midrash), is reserved only to important rabbinical authorities. There is a danger, he says, of “cunningness,” hypocrisy, and pride inherent to this kind of study.34 R. Hirshenzon says that even though there is such a danger, the sages taught their daughters Torah because they were aware of their abilities and knew that they would not misuse their studies. R. Hirshenzon does not support his position by using the interpreters of the Talmud. He does not mention any of the Rishonim, except one minor reference to Maimonides, or any of the adjudications of the Rishonim and the Ah.ronim. He adopts an innovative solution that distinguishes between education and Talmud-Torah. Even his approach to the concept of TalmudTorah is minimizing and only refers to the rules of the Mesorah. His interpretation goes against all accepted understanding of the literal meaning of the Mishnah and Talmud and is not substantiated by any other sources. This is not the normative approach to halachic writing, but an artificial interpretation ignoring the interpretive tradition of halachic debate. His book on tractate Horayot, however, shows that he is well-versed in traditional styles of halachic writing.35 The choice to present his halachic position in this language is not arbitrary. R. Hirshenzon was aware that the traditional halachic methods would not enable him to reach his rhetorical goal. He thus became one of the first activists involved in what I wish to call the “Zionist Halacha Project.” This term refers to Zionist decisors like Rabbi Herzog, Rabbi Uziel, and others.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The American experience

109

Inspired by their deep identification with the Zionist movement and desire to fashion a Jewish state based on halachic foundations, they started to publish halachic texts aiming to create halachic mechanisms that would generate results similar to Western legal systems.36 R. Hirshenzon preceded them not only in time but in his willingness to venture beyond traditional halachic norms in style and content. This, one may assume, was a major reason both for his marginal influence and his lack of students. Choosing a different approach, R. Hirshenzon discussed this issue in a book that also deals with the Torah portions. After acknowledging that the Talmud in tractate Sotah suggests that women have no place in Torah study, he quotes the Mishnah in Nedarim that allows girls to study the Written Torah. R. Hirshenzon explains that this seeming contradiction is an example of the distinction between education and the commandment to study Torah. He asks how it could be possible that a woman would not be obligated to study about the love and awe of God. It is impossible to differentiate between men and women in this context. Thus it is impossible to understand the distinction between hearing and learning in a simplistic manner. He offers the correct explanation of the Talmud in tractate H . agiga: “this is the difference in foreign languages between lerenen and studieren … we are obligated to teach our daughters like our sons and because we are obligated to teach these things, there is no difference to us if they learn it orally or through educational books.”37 In exchanges of letters with other rabbis, he reaffirms these ideas and speculates that Rabbi Eli’ezer’s position in the Talmud that the words of the Torah should be burned rather than given to women is the result of a scribal error, because it is impossible that he would have said such a thing about Torah scrolls. What Rabbi Eli’ezer meant to say was that the wheat that the matron gave his son as tithes should be burned, a notion with no manuscript support.38 R. Hirshenzon’s influence on Jewish society in both pre-state Israel and the US was marginal. By mapping out the statistical data, the relevant sources, and the position of R. Hirshenzon, we can triangulate the public debate on the question of young women’s education among Jews in the US. The question stems from the primary assumption that American society does not allow reliance on education in the home and that the perception that a Jewish woman is somehow immune to assimilation is mistaken. R. Hirshenzon integrates another idea that in the 1930s was still in its preliminary stages: egalitarianism in the religious sphere. For R. Hirshenzon, the idea of dignity and respect for women derives from the dignity of all humans. It is not merely an ad hoc measure to deal with assimilation and acculturation. Both in his discussion of women’s Torah study and in other issues such as women’s right to vote, he discusses the moral questions concerning women’s role in the modern era. His position may thus serve as one of the anchor points in mapping out the argument on women’s Torah study in American Jewish Orthodoxy.

110

The American experience

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Biographical sketch Rabbi Moshe Feinstein was born in 1895 in the town of Uzda, near Minsk, now Belarus. His father David was the town rabbi and a noteworthy scholar, descended from the family of the Rabbi Eliyaho, the Vilna Gaon. His mother, Faye Gittel, descended patrilineally from R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller, author of Tosafot Yom Tov, and matrilineally from R. Isaiah Halevi Horowitz, known as Shelah, author of Shenei Luh.ot Habrit. When Moshe was 12, the family moved to Starobin, as his father was appointed rabbi of that community.39 At age 13, Moshe Feinstein enrolled in the Etz H . aim Yeshiva in Sluz.k, headed by Rabbi Isser Zalman Meltzer, one of the leading rabbinic figures of the time. He moved on at age 15 to study at a yeshiva headed by Rabbi Pesah. Pruskin. At age 20 he was appointed rabbi of Uzda, where his father had served as rabbi, and in 1920 or 1921 he was appointed to serve as the rabbi of Lyuban, near Minsk.40 In Lyuban, Rabbi Feinstein had to contend with the Communist regime and the Yevsektsiya, the Jewish section of the Communist Party. Educational institutions were closed and mikvaot (ritual baths) shut down.41 As government pressure intensified, he emigrated to the US with the help of relatives. There, he was appointed Rosh Yeshiva of Tiferet Yerushalayim in New York’s Lower East Side. R. Feinstein became the preeminent rabbinic authority of his era, and his halachic rulings were accepted worldwide. His published volumes of responsa, Igrot Moshe, testify to a wide range of concern: medical Halacha, emerging technologies and their impact on Jewish life, and living an American lifestyle while adhering to halachic norms. An anecdote reveals R. Feinstein’s central role: In yeshiva circles they would joke and say that in order to receive rabbinic ordination, the only examination that a yeshiva student needed to pass was whether he knew R. Feinstein’s phone number…42 Beyond his rabbinic functions, R. Feinstein served as chairman of the presidium of Agudat Yisrael of America and as the head of its Moetzet Gedolei Hatorah (Council of Torah Sages). He also headed Agudat Harabonim (Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada) and took an active role in Israel’s H . inukh Az.mai education system, especially its fundraising efforts in North America. Academic assessment of R. Feinstein is in its earliest stages with a scholarly biography yet to be written. Some studies do exist regarding his attitude toward specific topics such as conversion or Jewish medical ethics.43 Recently, a paper has been published about his halachic methodology.44 Notwithstanding the lack of an academic biography, his personality and demeanor feature prominently in personal testimonies about him. Over twenty books by h.aredi authors depict him from a hagiographic perspective.45 There

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The American experience

111

are, however, a few testimonies of a historical nature, such as this one by Rabbi Jacob Chinitz, a leader of Conservative Judaism in the United States: “Reb Moshe emerges as a saint and a scholar; modest, patient and a decisor, posek for his generation with a sense of historic responsibility.”46 R. Feinstein termed himself easygoing and open to criticism.47 His magnum opus is Igrot Moshe (Epistles of Moses), eight volumes of responsa composed throughout his life in the Soviet Union and the US. This collection reveals a great deal about the world of this preeminent halachic authority and the complexity of Orthodox Jewish life in the United States, which exists in a state of constant interaction with a wider Christian and liberal society. Further publications include his writings on several Talmudic tractates, Dibrot Moshe;48 a book on mussar (personal ethical improvement and introspection) entitled Kol Ram Divrei Torah U-mussar, edited by his student, Abraham Fishelis;49 Darash Moshe, a posthumously published collection of homilies on the weekly Torah portion and the festivals;50 and a commentary on the Passover Haggada called Vayaged Moshe. He acted with a constant awareness of Halacha and the need to shape the existence of the Orthodox community in liberal-Western-Christian society in accordance with halachic standards. And so, alongside his uncompromising opposition to non-Orthodox groups, he was lenient in several areas: he allowed a widow not to cover her hair under certain circumstances,51 showed leniency toward in-vitro fertilization, permitted labor unions to protect the rights of workers,52 permitted the consumption of milk from large government-supervised dairies in situations where it was difficult to find kashrut supervision,53 and allowed a father to admit his mentally disabled daughter to a government- or even Christian-run institution.

Rabbi Feinstein’s attitude toward women through the lens of his non-halachic writings In his commentary on Gen. 46:27: “All the souls of the house of Jacob, descending to Egypt, numbered seventy,” Rashi ad loc. comments that women are absent from the list: “And according to the opinion that states that each of Jacob’s (male) sons was born with a twin sister, we will have to suggest that they died prior to the descent to Egypt, as they are not listed here.” R. Feinstein objects to this solution: This is surprising, seeing that it states [Gen. 46:26], “except the wives of the sons of Jacob.” Moreover, if twelve of his daughters had died, that would have constituted a terrible punishment of Jacob! Yet, we find no mention of it in the verses; this calls for extensive investigation. He suggests an answer: Perhaps, even though these were great women, as fitting for the wives of God’s tribes, their greatness lay in the tribes [their husbands who were the

112

The American experience

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

founders of the tribes of Israel], and it was for their sake that God endowed the wives with great souls. Therefore, they were not enumerated. However, there are many women who were great in their own right, such as the matriarchs and Miriam. In addition, the text (in chapter 46) records Dinah, Serah., and Jochebed, who were each great in her own right and not merely by virtue of her husband.54 While it may sound like Feinstein is championing women’s rights, the full picture is more complicated. On Exod. 19:13, “Moses ascended to God, and God called to him from the mountain: Say this to the house of Jacob and tell it to the children of Israel,” Rashi and other commentators explain, based on a midrash using a traditional apposition = opposition technique, that “the house of Jacob” (Beit Yaakov) refers to women55 while “the children (or sons) of Israel” (benei Yisrael) refers to the men. As to the question of women’s precedence over men, R. Feinstein explains that women’s maternal role is one of educating their young sons and daughters: One must educate them in their infancy so that observance of Torah and commitment to miz.vot will not prove difficult [at a later stage]. This is something that can only be performed by the mothers, who are specifically engaged in the physical needs of their sons and daughters. They must concurrently raise their children for spiritual and eternal life. Even after one passes the children along to be educated by teachers and rabbis in the yeshiva day schools, children spend a significant part of the day under their mother’s influence. Hence, God first gave the Torah to the women, since only by their efforts would there be a total acceptance of Torah by all future generations. Only once [the children] have been trained to have faith in God and in the giving of the Torah, and to love and desire the fulfillment of miz.vot, can they study the holy Torah from their fathers, teachers, and rabbis. And then they may receive Torah, mussar, and the path of truth from roshei yeshiva and from the outstanding men of piety. It is to this end that they initiate their sons and daughters on the path of Torah and miz.vot, and so may it be in perpetuity.56 Thus R. Feinstein holds that the role of a woman is to be a mother who can provide a fundamental education in matters of faith, and to instill in her children a love of miz.vot. However, Torah study is the masculine domain of fathers, teachers, and rabbis. A woman’s role is not to teach Torah but to be involved in a more elementary dimension of children’s religious education. This sermon was given to a group of young women and Beis Yaakov students in 1974, at a convention that addressed the importance of young women conducting themselves modestly, the preservation of the internal societal fabric of the Orthodox community, and condemnation of straying toward the outside world.

The American experience

113

A further reference to women’s leadership role occurs in a Passover sermon in connection with the rabbinic statement, “Due to the righteous women of the generation, we were redeemed from Egypt.”57 R. Feinstein’s basic attitude, then, is that there is no place for women in advanced Torah study: the traditional attitude of h.aredi society R. Feinstein merely upholds.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Attitudes to women’s Torah study in Igrot Moshe The story of women’s Torah study in Igrot Moshe is a narrative of Judaism in America, but an America on the attack: it attacks tradition, modesty, the basic concepts of right and wrong. It opposes Jewish life that existed in the heim (home) and caught in the middle are Jews that want to live as Jews in America with its new values. R. Feinstein tried to alleviate this tension: Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s map of America indicates that it is a very dangerous place. The moral climate and cultural environment appear inimical to his community and to his vision of the correct Jewish lifestyle. As a result his legal decisions chart a map with boundary markers set in places that are different from those set by his European predecessors. Motivated by a need to protect the Jewish world and ensure its survival in this immoral country, Feinstein’s goal is to create barriers that will prevent any form of male-female interaction.58 Boundaries are not necessarily the highest and thickest walls since rigid boundaries might chase people away. The case of women’s Torah study can serve as a good example. In a short passage in Igrot Moshe R. Feinstein takes an unambiguous stand in favor of the status quo: Regarding the institutions for girls and young women known as Beis Yaakov, and similar schools in which the administration and teachers wish to study Mishnah with them: Maimonides in his Laws of Torah Study (1:13) rules in accordance with Rabbi Eli’ezer (TB Sotah 20a) that one is not to teach women Torah. However, he differentiates between Oral Torah which is considered “as if he had taught her foolishness,” and the study of the Written Torah, which is not considered to be “teaching her foolishness,” yet ideally should not be taught to women. The sages instructed that Mishnah, which is Oral Torah, should not be taught to women, and that doing so was tantamount to teaching them foolishness. And so, women should be restricted from this, and one should teach only Pirkei Avot, which is ethical teaching and correct conduct, with explanations, to inspire love of Torah and good ethical traits; they should not be taught other tractates.59 R. Feinstein forbids teaching Mishnah to female students, and by extension Talmud study, adopting the traditional h.aredi approach that “he who

114

The American experience

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

teaches his daughter Torah is as if he had taught her foolishness” (TB Sotah 20a). The sole permission granted is to the study of Pirkei Avot, since it is includes ethical instruction and not Halacha. He concludes his brief responsum by dismissing the need for extensive elaboration because the issue is so straightforward. On a fundamental level R. Feinstein gives no content to women’s Torah study. The lack of supporting arguments highlights how alien Rabbi Feinstein found the notion of women studying Torah.

Letter to R. Meir Fund This brief rehearsal of the traditional prohibition is not, however, R. Feinstein’s only ruling. Baumel Joseph published a letter sent by Rabbi Mordechai Tendler, the grandson and secretary of R. Feinstein, to Rabbi Meir Fund. From this unpublished letter written on R. Feinstein’s official stationery, Baumel Joseph surmises that according to R. Feinstein there is no obligation to prevent women from studying Torah. The letter makes no mention of the responsum, and no halachic sources are provided for this ruling. Since R. Tendler frequently wrote letters on his grandfather’s behalf, Baumel Joseph concludes that this letter was written with R. Feinstein’s knowledge.60 The letter, however, generously placed at my disposal by Rabbi Fund, demonstrates that things are more complex. Written in the early 1980s, the letter asks whether one must object to women who study Mishnah together, i.e., as opposed to women who study Mishnah under the instruction of a male teacher, which would be forbidden. R. Tendler notes in his letter that his grandfather told him that men do not need to concern themselves with what women do, asking how the biblical Deborah reached her position as judge. Obviously – he answers his own rhetorical question – she was self-taught. He added in Yiddish that it is not one of the great sins against which one must protest. This letter betrays a certain ambivalence. While there is a mild critique of women who study Torah, the prohibition does not apply to self-study, and the prophetess Deborah even figures as the exemplar of a learned woman. The letter stresses that the form of study is critical: if a man does the teaching it may become too much like “masculine” Torah study and thus undermine the accepted social order. Another responsum reveals a movement away from his earlier sharp responsum, but also his apprehension about changing certain fundamental standards and timeless definitions: I was asked whether it is permitted to allow a woman to give a class in the synagogue or the Beit Midrash, not during the times of prayer. For example, on Friday evenings one of the congregants gives a class on the weekly Torah reading, and both men and women attend. Is it permissible for a woman to give the lecture? It would seem that the very fact that men and women are sitting together in mixed fashion is an adverse practice,

The American experience

115

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

but I will not get involved in that aspect of the topic at present. The practice of a woman giving a lecture in and of itself is permitted if it is an occasional occurrence. One needs to instruct her to be seated while she speaks so that it will be in the most modest way possible. Similarly it should be delivered in a private residence rather than the synagogue or the Beit Midrash.61 This responsum criticizes mixed gender seating, but it permits the occasional lecture by a woman. One needs to examine the stated caveats: the irregularity of the class, the subject matter – in this case, the weekly Torah portion rather than a topic from the Oral Law – and the convening of the class in a private residence. All these limitations are expressions of the concern that if women teach men on a fixed basis, it will result in confusion of the social order in which men hold positions of leadership. Despite these limitations, this responsum represents a major deviation from contemporary h.aredi norms: it would be difficult to imagine a situation in which a woman would give a class to an audience consisting of men and women (the question was not posed by a h.aredi synagogue). This is a relatively late responsum, from the summer of 1982, and it would seem that as time passed R. Feinstein demonstrated greater flexibility in his halachic rulings. In another responsum, R. Feinstein uses the prohibition of women’s Torah study as a pars pro toto argument for restricting women from entering any area of life traditionally male: One must know that it is not because women are in any way spiritually inferior to men, because as regards sanctity, they are equal to men. The obligation of miz.vot is an outgrowth of the sanctity of Israel. The verses relating to the sanctity of Israel are also applicable to women; whether it is the initial conditions of (Israel’s) acceptance of the Torah: “And you shall be special … a holy nation” (Exod. 19:5) – which was spoken to “‘the house of Jacob’ – these are the women; ‘And tell the children of Israel’ – these are the men” (Rashi to Exod. 19:4) … and wherever we find the sanctity of Israel, it was communicated to the women as well. Thus, women also recite blessings using the formula of: “who sanctified us with His miz.vot” just like men, even on miz.vot in which women are not obligated by the Torah, where the Torah wished to apply a leniency towards women – not due to any deficiency, God forbid, as noted above. Regarding obligations between husband and wife, the man is obligated to honor his wife and the wife her husband in an identical manner. There were several women who were prophets, having all the same legal status as male prophets. (Women) are praised on many counts, whether in the Bible or in the words of the Rabbis, even more than men. There is no derision of their honor because they are absolved from the obligation of Torah study and time-bound miz.vot; there is no cause for outrage. You must explain this each time and be insistent and adamant, for it is like the

116

The American experience

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

laws of the Torah to protest against these women who, after all this, adopt a foolish and stubborn position, ensuring that nothing of the holy customs of Israel is changed.62 The most telling point appears at the end of the responsum: “nothing of the holy customs of Israel is changed,” a perfect expression of R. Feinstein’s apprehension of change from traditionally accepted norms. The heart of the matter is to thwart any attempt at introducing elements deemed foreign to Judaism. An example for such a discussion can be found in a responsum that addresses women who wish to don a tallit: In the matter of important and aristocratic women (nashim sha’ananot veh.ashuvot), who, in accordance with wider cultural movements, are among those who fight alongside the worldwide movement, but these women, who are Torah-observant, want to introduce their battle into areas that relate to certain Torah laws; some of them pray with a tallit, or the like.63 This is the only responsum that deals explicitly with the women’s liberation movement. R. Feinstein expresses his concern about prominent Orthodox women who wish to bring about changes in the status of women in Jewish life. He does not directly address the question of women’s equality outside a religious framework: the emphasis is on changes within Jewish society. R. Feinstein restates his fundamental view regarding the role of women and the relationship between this role and Torah study: God ordained within the natural world, within every species, that the female raises the offspring, and even the human race was not excluded from this rule. The nature of women is more attuned to child-raising, and for this reason God lightened [their responsibility] by not obligating them in Torah study and active time-bound miz.vot. To this end, even if the norms of society change, and for wealthy women throughout the ages, and even if it is possible to pass over the raising of children to childcare as is the situation in our country, neither the laws of the Torah nor those of the Rabbis will change. No battle will be effective, for there is no power to effect a change, even by virtue of a global consensus. Those stubborn women who wish to struggle for change are regarded as deniers of the Torah.64 This is the same fierce refrain that repeats in other responsa: an absolute repudiation of foreign ideas originating in Western secular movements. This interpretation was reinforced by Rabbi Shabtai Rapoport, R. Feinstein’s student and grandson-in-law.65 One summer vacation, R. Rapoport spoke at great length with R. Feinstein about this particular responsum. The conversation revealed a mindset similar to that presented here: that the criticism

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The American experience

117

leveled at women who sought to change the power structure within the Jewish community emanated from the perception that their call for change was a damning criticism of previous Jewish communities. The desire for change, along with criticism of the communal structure of past generations, was unacceptable to R. Feinstein. In R. Rapoport’s view, it is this starting point that led to the responsum regarding Mishnah study,66 in which R. Feinstein ruled out the study of Mishnah because of its implied criticism of modes of learning at Beis Yaakov in the past. This approach also explains the short letter written in R. Feinstein’s name in which he allows independent Mishnah study. It also explains R. Feinstein’s oral response to Rabbi Meir Aberman,67 who conferred with R. Feinstein after Aberman had been invited to teach at the Mikhlalah Yerushalayim College, an institution of higher learning for women. The answer he received was that in the present day, one may teach women Mishnah. However, R. Feinstein did not want to commit this comment to writing. This response strengthens the notion that his opposition to women’s Torah study was not based upon the fundamental issue of women and the permissibility of Torah study, but rather the relevant historical context. Zusman claims that R. Feinstein gives minhag (accepted norm and custom) considerable status and weight in halachic decision-making, both as a tool for deciding between differing opinions and as having an effect similar to that of a majority decision in a rabbinical court.68

Gender-based education Orthodox schools, especially in h.aredi circles, are separate institutions for boys and girls. The reason is simple: modesty. Separation of genders is integral to modesty and fundamental to gender roles in Orthodox society. Joint educational institutions for boys and girls are problematic since they could lead to unwanted relationships in and around puberty. This principle is observed even in the lower grades in elementary school. R. Feinstein was forced to deal with several situations where this social ideal proved difficult or impossible. Several responsa address this topic. The earliest and most detailed is dated January 3, 1954: Regarding co-education, the rabbis certainly were displeased with it even for students of the youngest age, for although they do not yet have the [sexual] impulse, nor is there concern for [sexual] thoughts, nonetheless, they need to be educated to keep their distance from women, and the girls from men. When they study together, the reverse happens: they become accustomed to its opposite, to being near [members of the opposite sex], and they will remain accustomed to it even when they grow up and are subject to impulses and thoughts … and so, I have agreed to be lenient only in exceptional circumstances in which it has been impossible to create a separate girls school, and the girls would have had to go to

118

The American experience

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

public school, an environment which lacks [Jewish] faith and practice, God forbid. In such circumstances, it is preferable that they study in a school established by God-fearing people that is co-educational for younger grades, when there is no concern that they would violate prohibitions.69 Similar expressions recur in an entire set of responsa.70 Since different arguments are advanced in each responsum, Baumel Joseph suggests that it is somehow difficult to justify single-sex education. She fails to acknowledge, however, that gender segregation is a basic, central, and uncontested value in the h.aredi world. A full examination of the responsum raises several key points: Regarding the meetings of the society, in which men and women convene to discuss and decide on various secular matters pertaining to the society: they have instituted that at every meeting one of the group will teach some Torah, whether a law from Shulh.an Arukh or a point of ethical inspiration; this is positive practice. Yashar Khoakh! [Kudos!] As to the question of whether women may be present during the study session in the same manner with which they participate in all the other debates and discussions in general matters, or whether they need to go to a separate room – words of Torah and ethical teaching are not more problematic than general, secular discussions. Since you do not restrict them from attending the meetings, as all societies in this country which are open to full participation of women – even though I do not know of any justification for this leniency, but since they are permissive in this regard – there is no reason for the women to leave for the Torah study; women too need to know the laws of the Torah, and it is good for them to hear the laws and ethical teachings, as the Rabbis taught in reference to the miz.va of Hakhel: “women come to listen” (b. H . agiga 3a). Furthermore, it is good for them to hear Torah in any and every location. However, if it is time for afternoon or evening prayers, and the men wish to pray, then the women should go to another room and not remain in the room in which the men are praying.71 In R. Feinstein’s view, the mixing of men and women is not positive, but given that there are circumstances in which interaction between the sexes is unavoidable, one may utilize these situations for Torah study. R. Feinstein defines the topics which women can study: Torah laws from the Shulh.an Arukh and elsewhere and ethical teachings. This would allow women to study laws applicable to their daily living, but not Talmud, a position consistent with the mainstream view of Ashkenazi halachic authorities. Far from a revolutionary, R. Feinstein is merely upholding the consensus. He does not offer justification for this mixture of gender, but given that it already exists as a part of contemporary reality, the need for modesty only arises if the meeting becomes liturgical, not for a brief devotional with a mini-lesson on Torah.

The American experience

119

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Baumel Joseph sees yet another departure from his original stringent position in Rabbi Feinstein’s ruling that allows women to teach in boys’ schools.72 Although this responsum expresses dissatisfaction with a situation in which women teach at boys’ schools, it nevertheless allows schools to continue this arrangement.73 R. Feinstein refers specifically to elementary schools in situations of dire need: In this country, in the vast majority of elementary schools, women, whether single or married, are employed as teachers of both secular and religious subjects. No one protests the situation. Even if it is a response to a severe lack in male teaching staff, and even if male teachers will incur a greater expense, nonetheless one certainly needs to find a halachic justification for this.74 R. Feinstein allows women to teach older boys in situations of great need. This leniency, according to Baumel Joseph, represents a key step in the upgrading of the status of women in the Orthodox community within a context of Torah study. One may ask to what degree the leniency applies to teaching Talmud – which is the heart of the matter – or other Torah-related disciplines. Be that as it may, the heart of this reponsum is not in the issue of women’s Torah study, but of laws of modesty, specifically women teaching boys.75 Another related responsum regards a blessing recited upon the birth of a daughter: This is the formulation that I recited when I pronounced the name of your daughter, my dear granddaughter, Leah. I wrote it down, seeing that it is not the standard formulation “…and her daughter who was born to her in good fortune (“mazal tov”) with a long life and many years, may her name be called in Israel: so-and-so, daughter of so-and-so; may her father and mother merit to raise her for marriage and good deeds, and let us say – Amen!” … it is a mitzva to bless her, her father, and her mother that they merit to raise her for marriage and good deeds, and consequently it is inappropriate to interrupt the prayer for the healing of the mother with the naming of the newborn baby. Notwithstanding this point, the wording that is printed in the standard prayer book is incorrect, for why is it relevant in connection to the naming of the newborn to make the statement: “because her husband will give a donation to charity?” The printed version is incorrect, and the correct formulation is as I have written. If a person wishes, they can add, “May her father and mother merit to raise her for Torah and for a student of Torah, and for marriage and good deeds.”76 From the closing phrase, Baumel Joseph concludes that R. Feinstein supports the notion that women live lives of Torah study. However, one may explain this phrase in other ways: that “to raise her for Torah” is indicative of

120

The American experience

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

a life lived in the spirit of Torah rather than Torah study. Likewise, it may merely be a textual variant familiar to Rabbi Feinstein that he sought to preserve. A further area where the importance attached to women’s education comes to the fore is the financing of religious schools for girls, a topic arising many times in R. Feinstein’s responsa. For example, in one responsum, Rabbi Feinstein instructs that a Beis Yaakov school be financed from communal funds: Regarding whether one may pay one’s daughter’s Beis Yaakov tuition from tithes designated for charitable contribution, there is certainly a halachic difference in this regard between boys and girls. With regard to teaching Scripture, a father is obligated to teach his son, even at cost of hiring a teacher. Consequently, it is an obligation and may not be financed from the tithes. But with regard to girls, whom the father has no obligation to teach Torah, there is no Torah obligation (in her education). Hence, if necessary, it is possible to permit using the tithes. However, in our country, where state laws obligate women to attend school, and by God’s grace upon Israel, there is permission to teach them in schools with a Jewish, God-fearing administration, if a girl would not attend a kosher school like Beis Yaakov and similar institutions, to be educated in the ways of Torah, faith, and Torah observance, she would be forced to attend public school which is, God forbid, an environment devoid of Torah and faith. And this is mandated even if it incurs financial expense – to ensure that one’s daughter will believe in God and his Torah, keeping God’s commands – hence this too is an obligatory act. …In my humble opinion, it is obvious that one is obligated to pay for the education of one’s children, sons and daughters alike. … Practically, whatever is in accordance with one’s income must be paid as tuition and may not be taken from the tithes. However, if they request more, he may appropriate some of his tithe funds, and this applies also to boys’ education.77 In this responsum, R. Feinstein rules that a father has no obligation to teach his daughter Torah. Nonetheless, since national law mandates women’s education, opening the door to the danger that girls will be sent to non-Jewish educational institutions, it is preferable to send them to “kosher institutions” (by his definition) like Beis Yaakov. This responsum affirms what is already known: that one must educate Jewish women in suitable settings, and that one should not belittle women’s education. However, it has no curricular implications. Scholars have noted R. Feinstein’s stance on women’s Torah study as conditioned upon their motivation.78 R. Feinstein’s halachic ruling mandates an assessment of the attitudes that underlie the demand for increased participation. For example, besides the objective license for a woman to don a

The American experience

121

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

tallit, one must verify that there is no attempt to introduce foreign ideologies like egalitarianism, even if there is a halachic basis for leniency in a case where the request emanates from a genuine desire for religious growth.79 This case among others demonstrates that his halachic decisions contain a recurring concern regarding the influences of America’s liberal society.80 Another responsum, though without explicit mention of women’s Torah study, is still instructive: In the matter of the widow whose Torah scholar husband was employed as a kashrut supervisor (“mashgi’ah.”) and who has been left destitute without means of supporting her orphan children: Seeing that she is a modest, truly God-fearing woman, as well as wise, understanding, and responsible, one may rely upon her to fill her husband’s position as mashgi’ah. and thereby support herself and her family.81 Despite no direct reference to Torah study, it is obvious from this responsum that only a knowledgeable woman would be able to serve as a kashrut supervisor. Although one need not be proficient in Talmud to be a mashgi’ah. – knowledge of the relevant Halacha is sufficient – it is nevertheless a position of some public standing. Here too, there is a test designed to limit the concern for the penetration of “foreign notions”: this is the wife of a Torah scholar, modest, God-fearing, and most importantly, in financial need. The ability to earn a living is a factor that induces leniency in R. Feinstein’s halachic calculus. Moreover, the responsum does not address traditional Talmud study, but the study of practical halachic rules. R. Feinstein rules that women can be the trustees of men regarding the fulfillment of the role of kashrut supervision. He modifies Maimonides’ ruling forbidding women to accept any position of authority, maintaining instead that women are only prevented from positions relating to the priesthood or monarchy. Nevertheless, to remain within Maimonides’ framework, R. Feinstein rules that this woman should be an employee of a rabbi, so that ultimate authority over the proprietor would be in the hands of the rabbi and not a woman. This topic resurfaced in response to questions about this ruling: Regarding what you wrote, that according to my responsum in which I questioned Maimonides, who disqualifies women from all official functions, by noting that I know no source for his opinion and that it seems to me that not all halachic authorities concur with him, it might invite sin in the form of a woman being elected President of the State of Israel: we are not responsible for the conduct of that government, which is, due to our many sins, led by heretics and non-believers who pay no attention at all to our opinions. Even were the consensus to follow Maimonides, and it were explicit in the Talmud and even in the Torah, this would hardly be a factor in their decisions, in the same manner that they pay no attention

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

122

The American experience even to the most severe and explicit Torah prohibitions. Consequently there is no way in which we are inviting that sin. And as for your concern that American congregations will appoint women as president, I am also not worried about this problem, since synagogues and institutions that follow the way of Torah would not do such a thing without instruction from a qualified rabbi … And when you consider whether an upstanding woman is considered problematic, it is clear that if in some place there were a choice between the appointment of a non-believing and sinful man or a fine upstanding woman, and seeing that there is no option to convince them to appoint a man who is similarly suitable, then without doubt one must lobby to have the upstanding kosher woman appointed rather than the sinful, non-believing man.82

At the close of the responsum, R. Feinstein emphasizes again that this is a situation of dire need: It is a situation of great need for the livelihood of this widow and her children, and in these circumstances one can rely on those who oppose Maimonides, as with all classic rabbinic debates. However, I found a way to fulfill even the ruling of Maimonides, and hence one must follow my recommendation, since one is not compelled to rely on those who disagree. R. Feinstein is balancing opposing interests: the status quo versus livelihood of a widow and her family. He permits a woman to adopt the role of mashgi’ah., emphasizing that although she may take up the position, in order to fulfill stringent opinions he recommends that she arrange her employment so she will be under the supervision of a man.

“On Women’s Liberation” R. Feinstein’s concept of gender emerges unequivocally from the sources discussed in this chapter. In the context of women’s Torah study, women are viewed as potential agents of change. The feminist movement in its political sense is perceived as a real threat to the Orthodox way of life, similar to other institutions and features of Western society, such as higher education. The intense discussion regarding the motivation of women interested in studying Torah stems from the view that a woman who is motivated by feminist ideals is pushing for comprehensive change of the entire fabric of society. …even if the norms of society change, and for wealthy women throughout the ages, and even if it is possible to pass over the raising of children to childcare as is the situation in our country, neither the laws of the Torah nor those of the Rabbis will change. No battle will be effective, for there is no power to effect a change, even by virtue of a global consensus.

The American experience

123

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Those stubborn women who wish to struggle for change are regarded as deniers of the Torah.83 This statement concisely expresses R. Feinstein’s view of gender: circumstances may alter the social role that women hold within society, but changing social realities do not induce a more fundamental ideological shift that will critique Jewish tradition. He rejects any attempt at halachic revision motivated by Western ideology, in this instance, feminism. The demand of absolute adherence to Halacha, and within that, to a halachic order excluding women from certain roles, is a prerequisite for any discussion of a new or more lenient halachic option. R. Feinstein engaged in a dialogue with women in the Orthodox community, just as he periodically responded to questions posed by women. In this instance, he transmits two messages: the first is explicit, the second implicit. The explicit message is directed toward women influenced by the values of wider non-Jewish society and who wish to act for changes in Jewish life. The message is that change is not an option, and that women who seek to bring about change risk exile from the boundaries of Orthodox Judaism. The danger presented by that agent of change is so great that the message to other women, not in the above category, is veiled and not made explicit. A woman interested in Torah study “for the sake of heaven” may engage in that study only if the distinct gender difference between male and female study is preserved.

Conclusion These responsa from rabbis in America assume that women do not need to study the Oral Law and that the Beis Yaakov curriculum is adequate Torah study for women. Nevertheless, Jewish education for women is of vital importance. This stance recurs in Rabbi Feinstein’s commentary on the weekly Torah portion and in a responsum in which he forbids instruction in Mishnah to female students. A support for this position, one shared by most Orthodox halachic authorities, is the concern about “foreign spirits.” These alien winds, whose source lies in the feminist movement, began to penetrate the American Jewish Orthodox community during the years of R. Feinstein’s leadership. Despite this basic premise, in various situations he expresses hesitation, for example, by permitting women to study Halacha. His opposition is merely to women’s Torah study as practiced in the male realm: intensive Torah study by women would alter the traditional social order and threaten its stability. Another responsum allows a woman to give a lecture on the weekly Torah portion to men, on an occasional basis, and in a private residence. This suggests that R. Feinstein’s opposition stems from a fear of feminist influences and changes in the social order. A letter in which Rabbi

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

124

The American experience

Feinstein permits a study group of women to learn Mishnah offers further evidence. This analysis differs from the construct presented by Baumel Joseph, which emphasizes the significance of the influence of American social norms on Rabbi Feinstein’s positions on women’s education.84 Another bone of contention is the importance of responsa that express support for the Beit Yaakov school system. One cannot draw conclusions regarding questions of women’s Torah study from these responsa, seeing that women’s education in the h.aredi community was already well established and needed no further legitimization. Of greater significance is the motivation of women who wish to study, given extenuating circumstances such as livelihood and women who are not at risk of being influenced by alien movements. In these situations, there is a tendency to be lenient while making it clear that their study is not equivalent to that of men, all the while neutralizing characteristics that might seem similar to men’s Torah study. I do not discern the influence of American culture in the writings of R. Feinstein. Rather, I see traces of the American daily reality in all its many facets. This encompasses an economic situation where the state does not support yeshiva students and religious educational institutions and which entails a high cost of living. At the same time, women’s social status may improve as career opportunities for women expand in the general culture. As the years progress, Rabbi Feinstein’s language becomes less polemic when the question of women’s Torah study arises. Since one could have sufficed with a total ban as in traditional sources, we can conclude that R. Feinstein perceived the presence of gradual change in the American Orthodox community. His position therefore is not that of a newborn liberal but rather a leader who wants to preserve his community distinction while being aware of the limitations of his power to do so.

Notes 1 Barry Supple, “A Business Elite: German-Jewish Financiers in Nineteenth-Century New York,” Business History Review 31:2 (1958), 143–76. See also: Avraham Barkai, “German Jewish Migrations in the Nineteenth Century 1830–1910,” Leo Beck Institute Year Book 30 (1985), 301–18; Stephan Brumberg, “The Education of Jewish, Protestant and Catholic children in Mid-Nineteenth-Century New York City,” The American Jewish Archives 61 (2009), 10–41. 2 Charles Liebman, “Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life,” in Dimensions of Orthodox Judaism, Reuven P. Bulka ed. (New York: Ktav, 1983), 39. 3 Liebman, “Orthodoxy,” 40–46. 4 Jena Weissman Joselit, New York’s Jewish Jews: the Orthodox Community in the Interwar Years (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), 30–33. 5 Weissman Joselit, Jewish Jews, 25–53. 6 Weissman Joselit, Jewish Jews, 35. 7 Weissman Joselit, Jewish Jews, 38–41. 8 Weissman Joselit, Jewish Jews, 45–48.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The American experience

125

9 Melissa Klapper, Jewish Girls Coming to Age in America 1860–1920 (New York: New York University Press, 2005) 19–58. 10 Klapper, Jewish Girls, 60–78. 11 Klapper, Jewish Girls, 106–7. 12 Klapper, Jewish Girls, 150–54. 13 Paula Hyman, Haishah Hayehudiyah Besvakh Hakidmah (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar 1997), 81–82. 14 Hyman, Haishah Hayehudiyah Besvakh Hakidmah, 83–85. 15 Hyman, Haishah Hayehudiyah Besvakh Hakidmah, 86–88. 16 Klapper, Jewish Girls, 158, 176–77. Jonathan B. Krasner, The Benderly Boys and American Jewish Education (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2011), 49–54. 17 On the establishment of a high school for Jewish girls see Krasner, The Benderly Boys, 110. His book describes the attempts to offer a communal system of schools that will supplement public education and appeal to all denominations centered on a Hebrew curriculum. 18 Tzvi Sharfshteyn, Toldot Hah.inukh Beyisra’el Badorot Ha’akhronim, 2nd vol. (New York: Ogen, 1945–49), 236. 19 Tzvi Sharfshteyn, “Ba’aayot Hah.inukh Hayehudi Be’artzot Habrit,” in Hah.inukh Ha’ivri Bitefutsot Hagola (Jerusalem: Hotzat Hasfarim Leyad Hauniversita Haivrit, 1948), 63. For another historical survey see Tzvi Adar, Hah.inukh Hayehudi Beyisrael Ubearz.ot Habrit (Tel Aviv: Gome, 1970). 20 Yitzh.ak Shmidman, “H . inukh Habanos Di Refu’a!,” Hamesila, January 1937, 18–20. The second part of the article was published in February 1937, 16–18. 21 Shmuel Dov Maharshak, Hegyonei Shemuel (St Louis, MO: 1934), 114–19. 22 David Zohar, Meh.uyavut Yehudit Be’olam Moderni: Harav H . ayyim Hirshenzon Veyah.aso el Hamoderna (Jerusalem: Hakibutz Hameuh.ad, 2003), 17. 23 Zohar, Meh.uyavut Yehudit Be’olam Moderni, 20. 24 Zohar, Meh.uyavut YehZusudit Be’olam Moderni, 21. 25 Zohar, Meh.uyavut Yehudit Be’olam Moderni, 22–23. 26 On this topic see Eliezer Schweid, Demokratyah Vehalacha (Jerusalem: Magness, 1997); Yosef Turner, “Koah. Haz.ibur Bemishnato Hatdatit-z.iyonit shel Harav H . ayyim Hirshenzon,” in Yahadut Pnim Veh.uz.: De’alog Beyen Olamot, Avi Sagi et al. eds. (Jerusalem: Magness, 2000), 31–56. 27 Zohar, Meh.uyavut Yehudit Be’olam Moderni, 201. 28 Zohar, Meh.uyavut Yehudit Be’olam Moderni, 202. 29 Avraham Yitzh.ak Kook, Ma’amarei Haraya (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1984), 189–94. 30 Zohar, Meh.uyavut Yehudit Be’olam Moderni, 214. 31 Hamisdarona 5647:2, 289. The article was reprinted in Hirshenzon’s book Torat Hah.inukh Hayisraeli (Saiïni, Hungary: n.p., 1927), 175–98. 32 Hirshenzon, Torat Hah.inuch Hayisraeli, 176. 33 Hirshenzon, Torat Hah.inuch Hayisraeli, 181 34 Hirshenzon, Torat Hah.inuch Hayisraeli, 182 35 H . idushei Harah.ah Lemasekhet Horayot, vol 1. (Jerusalem: . aim Hirshenzon, H 1929). Volumes 2 and 3 were written in his new style. 36 See Ilan Fuchs, “Women’s Testimony in Jewish Law: Between Law and History,” Hebrew Union College Annual 82 (2012), in press. 37 H . aim Hirshenzon, Elu Divrei Habrit, vol. 2 and 3 (Jerusalem: 1926–28), 66–69. 38 H . aim Hirshenzon, Malki Bakodesh, vol. 3 and 4 (St Louis, MO: 1923), section 35 (erroneously printed as 34), 102. For other letters mentioning women’s Torah study see ibid. section 11 and also ibid. vol. 5 and 6 (St Louis, MO: 1928), sect. 6. 39 Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 8: Orah H . ayim (henceforth: “OH”) (Jerusalem, 1996), 5–7. 40 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 8, 9, 11–13.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

126

The American experience

41 Rabbi Feinstein managed to convince a local contractor to build a bathhouse meeting the requirements for a kosher mikveh and local government officials to allow the separation of the sexes. Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 1,OH 126, (New York: 1959). 42 Pinh.as Peli-Cohen: “Rabi Moshe Feinstein – Rav Amerikai,” Hadoar 65(23), April 11, 1986, 9. 43 See, for example, Mordekhay Halperin, “Al Da’ato shel Hagr”m Feinstein ZT”L Besugiyat Hamavet Hamoh.i,” Assia 12 (1990), 5–17; Baruch Finkelstein, “Me’afyenei Psika shel Harav Moshe Feinstein Le’or Psakav Beshe’elot Legabei Piryon, Meni’at Herayon Vehapalah,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2007; Moshe David Tendler, “Rabbi Moshe Feinstein,” in Pioneers in Jewish Medical Ethics, Fred Rosner ed. (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1997), 55–68. 44 Yehudah Zusman, “‘Vedibarta Bam … Uktavtem Otam’: Mishnat Psikotav shel Harav Moshe Feinstein – Hashva’at Dibrot Moshe Leigrot Moshe,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2007; Shabtai Rappoport, “Keruv Veikar Din Torah: Diyun Bepsikato shel Maran Rabi Moshe Feinstein,” BDD 16 (2005), 5–23; Harel Gordin, “Mekorot Hasamkhut shel Hahalacha: Iyun Bemishnato Hahilchatit shel Harav Moshe Feinstein,” Dinei Israel 25 (2008), 1–39. 45 See, for example, Shimon Finkelman, Reb Moshe: The Life and Ideals of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (New York: Mesorah Publications, 1986). 46 Jacob Chinitz, “Reb Moshe and the Conservatives,” Conservative Judaism 41:3 (1989), 7. 47 Chinitz, “Reb Moshe,” 6. 48 Moses Feinstein, Dibrot Moshe, 15 vols (New York: 1947–99). 49 Moses Feinstein, Kol Ram – Divrei Torah U-mussar, 3 vols (New York: 1980). 50 Moses Feinstein, Darash Moshe (Bnei Berak, 1988). 51 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 3, Even Ha-ezer (henceforth: “EH”), 57. 52 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 1: OH 58. 53 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 2: YD 47. 54 Feinstein, Darash Moshe, vol. 1, 32. 55 Thus the choice of name for the Beis Yaakov institutions. 56 Feinstein, Kol Ram, 127–28. 57 TB Sotah 11b. 58 Norma Baumel Joseph, “Separate Spheres: Women in the Responsa of Rabbi Moses Feinstein,” unpub. PhD diss., Concordia University, Montreal 1995, 209. 59 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 6, YD 87. 60 In a conversation with Rabbi Tendler. He did not recall writing such a letter. 61 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 8, OH 12. 62 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 6, OH 49. 63 Wolowelsky, Women, Jewish Law, and Modernity – New Opportunities in a PostFeminist Age (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1997), 8. 64 Wolowelsky, Women, Jewish Law, and Modernity, 8. 65 Telephone conversation, January 2002. 66 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 6, YD 87. 67 Telephone conversation, January 2001. 68 Zusman, “‘Vedibarta Bam … Uktavtem Otam’: Mishnat Psikotav shel Harav Moshe Feinstein – Hashva’at Dibrot Moshe Le-Igrot Moshe,” 128–37. 69 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 2, YD 137. 70 Only once did R. Feinstein permit co-education: in a small community, where unless classes were combined, the school would be forced to close for lack of students or the girls would have to attend public school. See: Igrot Moshe, vol. 6, YD 28. 71 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 5, YD 109. 72 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 6, YD 73.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The American experience

127

73 Baumel Joseph, “Jewish Education for Women: Rabbi Feinstein’s Map of America,” American Jewish History 83:2 (1995), 212. 74 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 6, YD 73. 75 Sara Veinstein, “Ma’amad Haishah hadatit Kemorah: Ha’im Ha’isur Hafakh Leheter?,”in Lihiyot Ishah Yehudiyah, vol. 4, Tova Cohen ed. (Jerusalem: Kolekh 2007), 77–92. 76 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 6, OH 67. 77 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 5, YD 113. 78 Wolowelsky, Women, Jewish Law, and Modernity - New Opportunities in a PostFeminist Age, 8; Norma Baumel Joseph, “Mechitza: Halachic Decisions and Political Consequences,” in Daughters of the King – Women and the Synagogue, Susan Grossman and Rivka Haut eds. (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1992), 126. 79 Wolowelsky, “Mechitza: Halachic Decisions and Political Consequences,” 8. 80 Baumel Joseph, “Mechitza: Halachic Decisions and Political Consequences,” 122. 81 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 5, YD 44. 82 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 5, YD 45. 83 Feinstein, Igrot Moshe, vol. 6, OH 49. 84 In an article on Rabbi Feinstein’s attitude to women’s headcovering, Baumel Joseph briefly presents a thesis similar to the one suggested here: “For Rabbi Feinstein, this issue of intent and social purpose makes all the difference. Given motives that fit his vision, he can accept or accommodate the distinct and various needs of some.” Norma Baumel Joseph, “Hair Distractions,” in Jewish Legal Writings by Women, H . ana Safrai and Micah Halpern eds. (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 1998), 18.

5

“Woman shall encircle man”

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women’s Torah study in the teachings of R. Menah.em Mendel Schneerson

Under the leadership of Rabbi Menah.em Mendel Schneerson (“the seventh Rebbe”), H . abad grew to become one of the most dominant forces in the Jewish world and developed aspirations to transform that world in accordance with its leader’s messianic vision. H . abad was one of the first movements within modern Judaism to begin a global outreach program, establishing thousands of centers called H . abad Houses. Both messianic vision and global mission have led to a much more nuanced, proactive approach toward secularism and the modern world, including the role and status of women. R. Schneerson began his career as Rebbe in the 1950s, after the Second World War and the destruction of European Jewry. Post-war America offered the American Orthodox Jewish community far greater economic opportunities, not least to its women. The emerging American struggles for equality of gender and race demanded attention, especially the feminist movement, which was gaining popularity in Conservative and Reform circles. In a h.asidic discourse from 1988, R. Schneerson reveals that it had long been customary for women in the families of H . abad rebbes to study Torah, and in the present day, there is a singular obligation for all women: because specifically in our times the need to know Torah is greater … and there is a need for special preparation in order to take adequate advantage of the many things that occasionally present themselves (including what the Jews receive from the gentile nations, giving them more and broader possibilities in additional fields).1 George Kranzler’s longitudinal studies of the economic structure of Williamsburg, New York, a Brooklyn neighborhood populated mainly by Satmar h.asidim, show that a process of acclimation and a change in the employment model was intentionally effected in order to preserve the community’s existence. Kranzler notes that only 1.7 per cent of the men were kollel students who were paid a stipend to study Torah full-time after marriage. This was based on a sample of h.asidim with an average age of 35 and six children each. The remainder of those surveyed worked in other fields as wage-earners, small

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Woman shall encircle man

129

business owners, craftsmen, teachers, and the like. The process by which members of the h.asidic community in this section of New York changed their economic fortunes was necessary once the community showed signs of economic collapse.2 Women also took part in the effort to improve the community’s economic structure.3 The need to earn a livelihood was so decisive that even the most extreme Orthodox community had to become flexible.4 The seventh Rebbe was aware of this as well, leading him to the conclusion that economic opportunity demanded a charging of spiritual batteries, accomplished through Torah study. Interaction with the modern Western world as grounds for permitting women’s Torah study is a refrain in the seventh Rebbe’s discourses: “In recent generations, the ruling of all Jewish Sages (‘gedolei Yisra’el’) is that ‘it is a time to act for God [Ps 119:126].’ They therefore took action and established schools to teach girls the Written Law and the pertinent halachot.”5 Even though the Beis Yaakov schools became an institution central to the h.aredi community, it was not established with rabbinic support. R. Schneerson states explicitly what no h.aredi leader would ever admit: So too with regard to Jewish girls – it was widespread in recent generations that gedolei Yisra’el from all circles permitted and founded girls’ schools to teach and educate them and to prepare then to fulfill their role and mission – to educate their children, even about time-bound positive commandments. Eventually, even those who originally opposed the movement followed suit when they saw the results.6 In contrast to his glowing description of the economic opportunities afforded in the New World, R. Schneerson speaks here of a concession to “great need” in social circumstances less than ideal. The new way of life, which requires regular contact with the modern world, demands a new approach, presented on the same plane as the decision of the H . afez. H . ayyim and other prominent rabbinic leaders to permit the establishment of Beis Yaakov institutions. Another expression of the difficulty of this era is women serving as schoolteachers of very young boys: “It is commonplace, with the consent of gedolei Yisra’el, that women teach young boys in school, among other things, the laws of Z.iz.it (fringes sewn on four cornered clothes) and the like.”7 While R. Feinstein permitted women to serve as teachers only in elementary schools or in cases of dire need, R. Schneerson sees the same situation as a basis for sweeping permission. Considerable influence was wielded by a major component of H . abad’s population: the “returnees” (h.ozrim/h.ozrot beteshuvah), formerly secularized Jews returning to Orthodoxy. This group required special attention, and the 8 Beit H . anah girls’ schools were founded as a result. The returnee population

130

Woman shall encircle man

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

in H . abad was large, and the absorption of many middle- to upper-class women with advanced degrees left its mark on the original shape of H . abad. Over the years, the relevant passages from the volumes of Igrot Kodesh showed a concern for the reaction of the h.aredi “street”: R. Schneerson knew that his position would not be received sympathetically. Yet his writings showed incremental changes in his position in both style and substance that follow the trajectory of H . abad’s growth. As H . abad’s foundations became stronger, R. Schneerson’s sweeping permission for women’s Torah study became more pronounced.

The shali’ah. and the sheluh.a The institution of shelih.ut is a uniquely H . abad phenomenon established primarily during the tenure of the seventh Rebbe. Shali’ah. (lit. “emissary,” sheluh.a is the feminine form) was chosen to signify a role as the direct agent of R. Schneerson himself. It was designed to promulgate traditional Judaism, 9 and H . abad doctrine in particular, especially among non-observant Jews: The sheluh.im are select people, courageous soldiers who volunteer among their people, the frontline warriors of Israel, who leave their homelands, birthplaces, and fathers’ homes to take care of the needs of all Israel throughout the world, in every country and every city, wherever the word of the King, the King of the world, must reach.10 This sacred work is not their own; rather, it is a special role that they undertook as emissaries of the leader of the generation (nesi hador), the holy Rebbe shlit”a [acronym for “May he live days that are pleasant and long”], so that wherever they are and whatever they do, they are his representatives and emissaries. And since one’s emissary is as one’s self, the nasi himself is present in all these places, concerning and busying himself with all his heart (levavo), all his spirit (nafsho), and all his might (me’odo), for the good of the community and its individuals.11 H . abad outreach, which markedly distinguishes it from other h.asidic groups, is an extensive effort to encourage the adoption of key miz.vot and of a religious lifestyle. The effort begins on the local level, but activities are integrated across all H . abad institutions. While other h.asidic groups shun contact with outsiders, especially discouraging it in the young, H . abad youth play a large role in outreach activities.12 The woman’s role of sheluh.a is to be the wife of the shali’ah., but it goes beyond this. Sheluh.im, who generally work far away from large concentrations of H . abad and h.aredi Jews, and sometimes in the most far-flung places – Shanghai, Katmandu, or Tblisi – cannot operate successfully without the active support and cooperation of their wives. Sheluh.ot serve in various capacities, from guidance and classes for women and teaching children to running the local mikveh (ritual bath, often used by women).

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Woman shall encircle man

131

The status of the sheluh.a is prominent in Sefer Hasheluh.im,13 a work of four thick volumes in which portraits of the sheluh.im and their families are published. The work opens with a group photo of the hundreds of sheluh.im who attended the 1991 (5751) International Conference of Sheluh.im, with the facade of 770 Eastern Parkway, the World H . abad Headquarters in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in the background. Next appears a portrait from a conference that took place some two months later, the 1991 International Conference of Sheluh.ot. The seventh Rebbe spoke at the latter conference and in a discourse delivered on Feburary 10, 1991, addressed the independent activities of the sheluh.ot without even mentioning the role of men.14 The remaining pages of all four volumes consist of portraits of the sheluh.im at every center throughout the world, as well as of their wives and children. Various texts discussing the institution of shelih.ut also address feminine traits perceived as uniquely advantageous when engaging in persuasion. In this respect, women are more capable than men: The work of bringing Jews close to Judaism has a special relevance to women. This is clear. It is because this work demands a special approach with feeling, good-heartedness, subtlety – and women have these qualities to a greater degree than men.15 R. Schneerson recognizes feminine identity and unique attributes and place them into the service of the greater good.16 Due to their functioning as sheluh.ot, Bonnie Morris believes that H . abad women fill the role of agents, not victims. She contends that H abad women . flourished during the 1950s, considered from a general feminist perspective as a stifling, conformist era. In her view, the success of H . abad’s operations in America stems in no small part from the involvement of women.17 Although sheluh.im are the elite of H . abad hasidim, the role of sheluh.ut symbolically applies to every H asid, wherever he or she may be. Even h.asidim . who did not become sheluh.im take an active part in the various mivz.a’im or serve as temporary sheluh.im. This is true of women and adolescent girls as well. Their participation was required for mivz.a’im, literally “campaigns,” referring to campaigns instituted by R. Schneerson to encourage more people to fulfill certain commandments such as Sabbath observance, family purity laws, and Torah study. Women distributed Sabbath candles and encouraged the traditional custom of lighting them, while adult and adolescent males “campaigned” for wearing tefillin (phylacteries) or giving to charity. R. Schneerson also created a social model in which the yeshiva student was required to take part in Jewish outreach efforts. In contrast to the conventional h.aredi ethos, which views any endeavor other than Torah study as a waste of a yeshiva student’s time, R. Schneerson viewed anyone who did not participate in these efforts as the product of a failed education.18

132

Woman shall encircle man

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women and H . abad, women in H . abad In the H . abad movement there is an emphasis on “yih.uda tata’a,” i.e., lower unity, over “yih.uda ila’a,” upper unity. This kabbalistic concept of lower unity underlies an obligation to strive for holiness from within the physical, material world. In such a value system, a woman can achieve a spiritual status equal to that of a man.19 There are many stories about prominent female figures in H . abad, such as Sterna, the wife of the R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi the founder of the movement, and his daughter Frida.20 Loewenthal discusses two minor works published by the second H . abad Rebbe, R. Dov-Ber, the heir of the Alter Rebbe. The first work, Poke’ah. Ivrim, addresses methods of preventing impure thoughts.21 Unlike other works of this type, which presume that women have such thoughts only rarely, this work sees quite different a reality.22 A significant turning point came during the tenure of the sixth Rebbe, R. Joseph Isaac Schneersohn (Rayatz), who founded institutions for the education of girls. These institutions were established after his father, R. Shalom Dov-Ber Schneersohn (Rashab), established Tomkhei Temimim, a network of the first h.asidic yeshivot, on a model that differed from Lithuanian yeshivot in its emphasis not only on Talmud study but also the study of H . abad h.asidic literature.23 After R. Joseph Isaac left Russia, he lived for a time in the Latvian capital of Riga, where a study group for women, called Ah.ot Temimim, was established at the request of one of Riga’s communal leaders. R. Joseph Isaac permitted the teaching of H . asidism to women. He relied on a statement of the fourth Rebbe that h.asidim do not differentiate their sons from their daughters and on a story attributed to R. H . ayyim ibn Attar, author of the Or Hah.ayim commentary on the Pentateuch, who studied the Written Torah with his daughters.24 Ah.ot Temimim studied h.asidic tracts and discourses, and R. Joseph Isaac kept abreast of the progress of their studies. In addition to Torah study the women of Ah.ot Temimim had another function: the promotion of h.asidic ideas and practice. Students translated and distributed h.asidic texts and worked to encourage observance.25 In the wake of the Soviet occupation of 1940 and the subsequent Nazi occupation of 1941, many students and teachers were killed, but the idea of Ah.ot Temimim survived. A group with the same name was established in Brooklyn in 1938 by the founder of the Latvian group, R. Mordechai H . efez., after asking the daughter of one of the leaders of H abad in America, . 26 R. Eliyahu Simpson, if she would be interested in studying H . asidism. This group’s course of study was less intensive, and included Tanya, discourses, and a monthly hitva’adut, a meeting where h.asidic discourses are discussed. The first school in the Beit Rivka network, named for the mother of the Alter Rebbe, was founded in 1942 to contend with the challenges of secular education.27 Under the leadership of the seventh Rebbe, educational institutions for women who returned to Jewish observance (ba’alot teshuva) were founded

Woman shall encircle man

133

and called Beit H . anah or Makhon H . ana in memory of the seventh Rebbe’s mother. These institutions included classes in Talmud along with classes in Mishna and Midrash.28

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

License for women to study Torah in the writings of the Seventh Rebbe The starting point for the discussion of women’s Torah study in H . abad H . asidism is the ruling of the Alter Rebbe, R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, in Shulh.an Arukh Harav: A woman is not obligated in the commandment of Torah study, as it says: “‘and you shall teach them to your sons’ [Deut. 11:19] – and not your daughters.” Just as she is not included in the commandment of Torah study, she is also not commanded to teach Torah to her sons. She is exempt from paying tuition for her sons, and we do not compel her to, unless she is wealthy, and as a form of charity. Nevertheless, if she bodily or monetarily helps her son or husband to study Torah, she shares their reward, and her reward is greater, given that they are commanded and act through her, than that of a woman who studied Torah herself, who merits reward but not as much reward as a man, since she acts but is not commanded. Although she merits reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah, since the minds of most women are not focused on study, and they make the words of Torah into words of folly according to the impoverishment of their minds. If he teaches her the Oral Torah it is as though he taught her tiflut, since through it cunningness will enter her. Nevertheless, women are obligated to study those laws that they must know, such as the laws of menstruation, immersion, salting meat, forbidden seclusion with a man, etc., all positive commandments that are not time-bound, and all biblical and rabbinic negative commandments, to which they are as obligated as men. In former times, a scholar would expound each and every Shabbat on common laws that everyone needs to know, in a language understood by women and ignoramuses.29 The Alter Rebbe’s ruling conforms to the accepted approach of Ashkenazic halachic decisors, who permitted women to study those laws pertaining to them.30 The Alter Rebbe did not mention the Halacha regarding a woman who studies the Written Torah, however, though some have claimed that he did not prohibit women its study. This reading, however, does not seem anchored in the text.31 Although this was the seventh Rebbe’s starting point, he chose an interpretation that considerably broadened women’s access to study Torah.32 Presented in several forums, his views first found voice in a h.asidic discourse of August 198633 and later modified.34

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

134

Woman shall encircle man

The discourse opens with a question about the Alter Rebbe’s order of presentation: why did he not write the conclusion, which obligates women to the study of those laws that pertain to them, prior to his statement that a women who aids her husband or son in the study of Torah shares in their reward for the performance of a commandment? If women must study only those laws that they must observe, he asks, why then must women recite the benediction (berakhot) on the Torah once they have attained mastery of the pertinent laws and thus no longer need to engage in study? Since the Alter Rebbe ruled that women are obligated to recite this blessing,35 the seventh Rebbe then deduced that women studying the laws obligatory to them could be considered an independent commandment and not merely a preparatory act (hekhsher miz.va). He proves this from the case of a Gentile who studies Torah, whom the Talmud describes as being “akin to a high priest.” Although the study of Torah – in this case the seven Noachian laws – by a Gentile is a hekhsher miz.va, it nevertheless becomes an intrinsically valuable form of Torah study. Equating the Gentile with the high priest shows that he has a share in the Torah, the heritage of the congregation of Jacob.36 An analogy to sacrificial offerings offers another approach. The Talmud (b. Zevah.im 13a) records R. Eli’ezer saying that improper intentions (planning to eat the sacrifice after the allotted time) while carrying the blood to the altar for sprinkling invalidates the offering. The Rogatchover Gaon (R. Yosef Rosen) reasons that the act of carrying the blood to the altar is intrinsically significant even though it is only a hekhsher miz.va, and improper intentions during this act may therefore invalidate the entire offering. The seventh Rebbe applies this explanation to Torah study for women, claiming that the study of laws observed by women has become an independent issue, and now women may study other matters as well. Although the study of Torah by women does not originate in the general miz.va of Torah study, it still attains a status akin to Torah study, and women must thus recite the berakhot. The issue of a woman’s reward is raised later in the discourse. Since a woman provides vital support for her son’s and husband’s fulfillment of the commandment of Torah study, she is rewarded ab initio for the actual performance of the commandment. Since it says that a woman “shares” in the reward, not that she “gets” reward, it is implied that she has a share in a “greater” commandment, i.e., the commandment itself. Her actual assistance of her husband in his study is only optional, and thus it was not cited as a supporting reason in the Alter Rebbe’s ruling that women must recite blessings on the Torah. After all, it is merely an optional and ancillary act. The actual study of laws that women must observe, however, constitutes sufficient impetus for reciting the blessing. The discourse returns to the order of presentation in Shulh.an Arukh Harav, where the statement about a woman’s reward for assisting her husband or son precedes her obligation to study the pertinent commandments. Assistance to her husband or sons constitutes a direct and inseparable part of the

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Woman shall encircle man

135

commandment of Torah study, whereas Torah study is rooted in the requirement to become familiar with commandments obligatory for women. Although it is an independent requirement and allows for the expansion of the material that a woman may study, it is not an integral part of the “masculine” miz.vah of Torah study. The seventh Rebbe concludes with an allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs37 with God as bridegroom and the People of Israel as bride: the husband’s role is to conquer the world, and he is the only one with the power to do so, but the actual conquest is carried out by the Children of Israel. According to the seventh Rebbe, the “assistance” provided by the Israelites makes them actual partners with God in this commandment. Handelman sees this allegory as yet another example of the seventh Rebbe’s method of revalorizing texts whose traditional interpretation denigrated women, putting them in a positive light toward the status of women and their study of Torah. This rhetorical strategy grants equal weight to men’s and women’s Torah study.38 These texts show a distinct hermeneutic: in new readings, canonical texts emphasize what women can do and their positive contribution to Torah study. Instead of emphasizing the difference between men’s and women’s study as R. Soloveitchik does, this interpretation elevates women’s Torah study to the same level of men’s Torah study within the religious sphere reserved to women. Torah study for women also arose in a discourse delivered on the weekly Torah portion of Ha’azinu39 and reprinted with sources in H . idushim Ubi’urim Lashas.40 Shulh.an Arukh Harav rules that since men are commanded to “meditate on [the Torah] day and night,”41 it is sufficient for them to recite the blessing once a day, which covers all of that day’s studies, even if they were interrupted for legitimate reasons such as earning a livelihood. Regarding women, the ruling of Shulh.an Arukh Harav is that they too recite the benediction over the Torah, even though they are not commanded to study Torah day and night, but only required to study the laws incumbent on them. Even if one rejects the connection between the blessings over the commandment to study Torah and women studying the commandments incumbent on them, women must still recite these blessings because the birkhot hashahar (morning benediction, including over Torah study) are fundamentally benedictions recited on enjoyments (birkhot hanehenin) that are regular and fixed, not sporadic. The ruling of Shulh.an Arukh Harav therefore includes women’s obligation to study at least those commandments incumbent upon them, so that women would study Torah daily and regularly. Indeed, women have a constant obligation to study Torah.42 R. Schneerson creates an independent obligation to study Torah, it has a different halachic basis but the end result is the same. Women and men should not let a day pass without Torah study because the most important concern is the study of Torah and the affects it has on faith, while the halachic basis for the obligation is secondary.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

136

Woman shall encircle man

Handelman infers from this particular discourse – perhaps too strongly – that women’s Torah study is not merely a hekhsher miz.va but enjoys the same status as men’s.43 A similar strategy, however, informs another discourse addressed to women on the eve of Lag B’Omer 1990 (5750),44 in honor of the International Conference of H . abad Women and Girls and later edited for publication. Women are also obligated to educate their sons and need to acquire knowledge for that reason, even though in principle the obligation lies with the father. In fact, there is an advantage in women rebuking their sons, since they do so “in a soft voice and with feelings of closeness, love, and affection,” a more successful pedagogical method, especially in recent generations. A recurring theme linked to women’s religious life is the verse, “Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the children of Israel” (Exod. 19:3),45 Midrash Rabbah allegorizes the house of Jacob as women and children of Israel as men. Women were given only the basic principles of the Torah, and the Mekhilta explains that the house of Jacob should be addressed in a soft voice and with soft words more appropriate to women than aggressive discourse that focuses on punishment for not following the commandments. Rashi explains that this Midrash includes the basic principles, which are easier to understand. R. Schneerson explains that the midrashic interpretation actually refers to concise statements that the student can digest: since women’s minds are more attuned to brevity (“da’atan kez.ra”), they are only told the basic principles, without many details. On the other hand, the “basic principles” that the Mekhilta refers to are the actual basic principles – the general rules of the Torah, from whence everything else derives.46 According to the Midrash as explained by R. Schneerson, only part of the Torah was given to women, e.g., negative commandments, and not time bound positive commandments. In contrast, according to the Mekhilta the “basic principles” of the entire Torah pertain to women equally, even though they are not obligated in all commandments. The conclusion is that the Mekhilta reflects women’s superiority, in that they are given the “basic principles,” in contrast to the Midrash, which states the opposite. An explanation is offered for why women are given these basic principles: This accords with the general superiority that women have over men with regard to the worship of God in general. We see that women have a more obvious faith in God and reverence for God. The reason for this is also obvious: “their intelligence is not so strong, so they are more likely to accept something on (simple) faith and to act without investigating” [Interpretation of Rabbi Wolf Einhorn on Midrash Rabbah]. Thus the root of the matter is that faith shines on them directly from God.47

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Woman shall encircle man

137

There is a unique manifestation of faith among women, which is a virtue, not a fault. By virtue of righteous women, we “will leave the current exile” and merit studying the Torah of the Messiah, who will teach the entire nation – and this, the seventh Rebbe says, will happen soon. This form of feminine religiosity leads to the conclusion that a mother must learn with her sons by reviewing their studies with them. This type of study is reserved for women and is characterized by warmth and feeling, adding “vitality and extra enthusiasm,” in contrast to studying with the father, which is more like an examination. This also has the advantage of increasing women’s Torah study.48 He also obligates women to study laws relevant to them as well as H . asidism. He also returns to the matter of studying laws that are not obligatory to women. Regarding the concern for cunningness voiced by Maimonides, R. Schneerson rules that there is no such concern since women learn secular professions that “put cunningness into women.” In light of this social reality, women must study not only halachic rulings without their rationale, where there is no concern for cunningness, but even the reasons for rulings, “including the give-and-take (shakla vetarya) of the Torah.”49 This is R. Schneerson’s most revolutionary statement on the subject. Women are capable of studying Torah in a manner that had previously been the sole domain of men – in-depth study including the dialectical discourse of rabbinic literature. Later in the discourse, R. Schneerson says that both women and men naturally enjoy this type of Torah study, since through it they develop the abilities and sensibilities he terms “cunningness,” (armumi’ut). This is not the gendered tiflut of traditional readings or even a temptation to both men and women, but an intellectual quality positively valued in the spirit of the Torah. Handelman notes that this is an innovative use of a term that has a negative connotation in the Mishnah and Talmud, but that now obtains the meaning of intelligence–also the meaning of the term arum in b. Berakhot 17a: “one should always be subtle [‘arum’] in the fear of Heaven.” Moving the term “armumi’ut” away from its traditional meaning is another example of R. Schneerson’s radical interpretation. R. Schneerson adds that learned women may also help their husbands by engaging and participating in the actual study. The permission given to women to study Torah results from the “decline of the generations” (“yeridat ha-dorot”), but with salutary result as it increases the study of Torah. Finally, R. Schneerson calls upon the Lubavitch Women’s Organization to encourage the study of laws that pertain to women and other Torah subjects,50 beginning with simple subjects like Ein Ya’akov, a collection of Aggadah from the Talmud with commentary. By virtue of righteous women the redemption will come “immediately and without delay, truly (mamash).” Then the process of education, which, as he stated at the beginning of the discourse, is a woman’s job, will be completed. The innovative nature of R. Schneerson’s approach evoked extreme reactions published in the organ of his staunchest opponents, the newspaper

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

138

Woman shall encircle man

Yated Neeman, the mouthpiece of the Degel Hatorah party, representing the Lithuanian branch of the h.aredi community. The attacks on H . abad by the Lithuanian community were ferocious, uncompromising, and included allegations of false messianism. Yet this discourse also elicited a different, perhaps surprising reaction from another quarter. Several days after publication in a H . abad mouthpiece, Yated Neeman published a front page article featuring reactions from prominent individuals involved in women’s education in the h.aredi community, including Rabbi Ze’ev Wolf, principal of the Beis Yaakov Seminary in Bnei Brak, and Rabbi Bunim Levin, principal of the Beis Yaakov Seminary in Jerusalem. The tenor was one of impassioned opposition: “God forbid! Let them do that at Beit H . ana … not among us! Everything has its limits! The law forbids teaching women in general, and only things that have been permitted are permitted.”51 An entire page52 was devoted to the subject, in which, in contrast to the common practice of engaging in ad hominem attacks, the writer was content to print the words of R. Schneerson alongside citations from the Tur and H . afetz H . ayyim, whose positions apparently differ. This expresses the degree of shock that gripped the h.aredi community upon publication of the seventh Rebbe’s position as well as its unprecedented nature: there was no need to engage in the customary vilification.53 The author notes that H . abad h.asidim reported in a weekly Torah-themed newsletter distributed throughout Israel that the seventh Rebbe’s position concerned only the study of laws pertaining to women and not to general Torah study. He contends that they were ashamed to present the words of their leader in public. A short notice on the matter in the newsletter indeed explained that the seventh Rebbe had spoken only about the study of laws obligatory for women.54 Rabbi Menah.em Brod, the editor of the newsletter then as now, does not remember the incident. According to him, however, the error apparently resulted from the discourse not having been proofread before the printing of the newsletter, and thus the published content was limited to matters that had been checked and cleared.55 The book Bez.el Hah.okhma56 records discussions R. Schneerson held with prominent rabbinic leaders such as the Gerrer and Satmar Rebbes, Rabbi Moses Z.vi Neriya, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and the Chief Rabbis of Israel. The recorded discussions were not reviewed by the seventh Rebbe, and therefore should be treated with caution. Torah study for women came up in a conversation with the Belzer Rebbe on March 10, 1981. R. Schneerson explained that the establishment of girls’ schools was imperative since the alternative would be government-mandated public schools. Given that women are obligated to the commandments of loving and revering God, he explains, a thorough study of H . asidism is vital. He also urges that women must study Mishnah, since it is, after all, Halacha. With regard to Talmud study, he responds to the Belzer Rebbe’s query by saying that

Woman shall encircle man

139

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

they should be taught the sections of the Talmud that pertain to laws relevant to their lives, the passages connected to the Mishna of Berakhot and the like. Furthermore, if they are not taught, it does not mean they will not study it; on the contrary, they will study Talmud regardless, but we will not know from whom and from which books. Our era is not like previous generations … we live in an open generation.57 Later in the conversation, the Belzer Rebbe asked R. Schneerson what remained of the category of tiflut. R. Schneerson responded that it refers to the Oral Law, but that “the girls are already studying tiflut regardless; our job is to put them on the right path.”58 Content with articulating a general vision, he never required or proposed any particular subject matter, leaving the details in the hands of the local institutions.59 R. Schneerson acknowledges “there is a difference between men and women,”60 as far as specific religious commandments and character qualities are concerned. Still, throughout his career, R. Schneerson argued for the need for in-depth study of Torah by women. The challenges of the time demanded a strong Jewish identity that only such study could form. The negative or privative character traits canonical sources find in women are revalorized positively, disconnecting women’s Torah study from immodest behavior.

Women and the study of H . asidism The study of H . asidism as a component of Torah study is unique to the h.asidic element of h.aredi society. The legal approach to women studying H . asidism, as the study itself, differs regarding the study of the Oral Law. Presented on various occasions, the seventh Rebbe’s approach is based on the accepted ruling that women must study the laws that pertain to them, i.e., all positive non-time-bound commandments, all negative commandments, and all time-bound positive commandments that are nevertheless obligatory for women.61 Permission for women to study H . asidism is based on the claim that miz.vot pertaining to faith are considered non-time-bound. The seventh Rebbe refers to six commandments that Maimonides identifies as applying at every moment, without interruption, and to both men and women: (1) knowledge of God’s existence, (2) prohibition of the belief in any deity but God, (3) knowledge of God’s singularity, (4) love of God, (5) reverence for God, and (6) not to stray after one’s heart or eyes. In order to fulfill these commandments, which lead to love and reverence for God, one must study H . asidism: this applies to women as well. With no hesitation, R. Schneerson does not present this as merely optional for women; this matter is far less complicated than the issue of women studying Talmud.62 One must study all of those subjects that lead to love and reverence for God, such as “knowledge of the Divine, the development of the cosmos (seder hishtalshelut – referring to the kabbalistic scheme of the sephirot), etc.”63

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

140

Woman shall encircle man

Willingness to allow women such unrestricted access to esoteric knowledge is no small thing. H . asidic literature, especially H . abad literature, is infused with kabbalistic terminology, and prolonged engagement with H . abad texts will lead to a broad familiarity with esoteric branches of knowledge to which access is limited for men as well. He praises the contemporary generation in which the study of H . asidism has increased among women. He explicitly describes a form of study that is not merely elementary or superficial, but “rather includes the understanding and conceptualization of specific content, for this form of study also pertains to them … and they should certainly continue making ever greater efforts to increase both quality and quantity.”64 In a hitva’adut during the winter of 1986, he discussed a passage from Maimonides: Therefore, when teaching children, women, and the ignorant masses, we only teach them to worship out of fear and in order to obtain reward, until their minds expand and they gain wisdom, when we gradually reveal this secret and patiently accustom then to this matter, so that they comprehend him, know him, and worship him out of love.65 Women’s worship of God is initially out of fear and in order to obtain reward, but the motives of reward and fear are only temporary until they achieve the ability to worship out of love. This ability is attained by knowing and comprehending God, about which he writes, “this is the totality of the study of 66 H . asidism.” The inevitable conclusion is that women are obligated to study 67 H . asidism in depth.

Study of the works of Maimonides The Rambam Yomi (daily Maimonides) campaign, which assigns the daily study of passages from the works of Maimonides as part of a fixed, recurring cycle, was initiated by H . abad under the seventh Rebbe’s leadership. Participants could choose one of three Rambam Yomi tracks: the study of one chapter of Mishneh Torah daily, completing the cycle every three years; the study of three chapters daily, completing the cycle every year; and the daily study of one entry in Maimonides’s Sefer Hamiz.vot. This project has two broad objectives: the common study of all Jews promotes unity and accelerates redemption, and it will engender love of fellow Jews (ahavat Yisra’el), which negates exile. Studying the works of Maimonides is the best way to achieve these objectives, since they are written clearly and concisely, and, unlike other medieval rabbis, Maimonides includes laws that are not relevant today, therefore it is a more complete representation of the Torah and relevant for the messianic era when the Temple will be rebuilt.68 The seventh Rebbe ruled that women should also participate in this project: first, it was designed to increase observance of the miz.vah to “love your

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Woman shall encircle man

141

neighbor as yourself,” which applies to women as well. Second, since Maimonides was the sole medieval authority who compiled the laws of Temple sacrifices, women are obligated to study his treatment of the subject, since the Temple would be restored in the messianic era and the laws governing the Temple apply to women. As for the remaining laws, the seventh Rebbe states that even if they need not study them, they would nevertheless receive reward for doing so.69 Special emphasis was devoted to the study of Sefer Hamada, the first book of the Mishneh Torah, and the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, as well as similar sections, since they deal with the fundamentals of faith and pertain to the six constant commandments. Women were required to participate in the shorter Sefer Hamiz.vot track since their primary role, according to R. Schneerson, is to educate the children and run the household. Additionally, Sefer Hamiz.vot was not originally composed in Hebrew and is therefore suitable to one who is not yet fluent in it, i.e., women and children.70 There is no concern for “cunningness,” since the Sefer Hamiz.vot does not provide halachic proof for the laws.71 The seventh Rebbe nevertheless admonishes women to study three chapters of Mishneh Torah daily.72

Igrot Hakodesh A significant portion of R. Schneerson’s writings was published as the Igrot Kodesh series. Thus far, more than ten thousand of his letters have been published in 29 volumes. The significance of the letters lies in their halachic character, reminiscent of responsa literature. They offer social and economic context combined with discussions of Halacha or religious philosophy. A letter dated October 21, 1955, for example, tells about the great emphasis placed on girls’ education even among its opponents: So too, when a writer states that girls’ education should be based on Torah and not only tradition, he is told that this is forbidden. Yet recent generations are living proof that this idea is unreasonable and unrealistic. Anyone who thinks about it recognizes the conflagration and destruction that such behavior brought down specifically in recent times.73 As often mentioned in the letters, the struggle over changes to women’s education created severe internal tension in Eastern European Orthodox society. Another responsum describing the atmosphere of opposition, dated May 6, 1955, is addressed to R. Yerah.miel Blumenfeld: Regarding your lecture on a topic in H . asidism – and proposal that the girls participate as well, but on condition that they sit in separate rows – and you certainly mean that they sit on separate sides of the room, with an appropriate amount of empty space in the middle: although it should

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

142

Woman shall encircle man not be publicized that this is being done officially, as some sort of stance – for certainly there will be some (unaltruistic) zealots who invoke the rabbinic dictum, “anyone who teaches his daughter Torah…” – efforts should be made to ensure that it indeed comes to fruition (albeit carefully, of course, so that it is not seen as a stamp of approval for the institution, as mentioned above). This is like when my father-in-law, the sainted Rebbe, set up classes for women to study H . asidism when he was still in Riga. He even wrote letters on these subjects. The fruits and benefits eventually came to light – for the woman is the homemaker, and even prior to that regarding prospective matches – in reality it is a legal ruling of the Torah, appearing in the Laws of Torah Study of the Shulh.an Arukh and the Laws of Torah Study of the Alter Rebbe, at the end of chapter 1 – that women are obligated in the aforementioned study that leads one to accept the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, to reverence for God, and to the beautification of Torah and miz.vot in daily life. That which is well known and can be seen any day need not be discussed at length.74

The study of H . asidism is apparently an easier challenge since its texts are not deeply esoteric. But what about Talmud study? The letters demonstrate that the discussion was not always theoretical. In a letter dated October 25, 1956, the seventh Rebbe writes: Regarding your reservations about studying Talmud with an 11-year-old girl: if it is not too difficult, arrange to study those sections that have some practical bearing, for then it is within the purview of studies for women, as explained at the end of Chapter 1 of the Alter Rebbe’s Laws of Torah Study. There are many such sections and tractates, especially since she is close to the age of twelve, when she must accept the yoke of miz.vot.75 The significance of this letter lies in its granting permission for a young female pupil to study the text of the Talmud as its own discipline. The preference given to sections that pertain to miz.vot obligatory to women seems to be a mere escape hatch in case objections arise. There are additional responsa that explicitly legitimate women’s Talmud study. In a letter of July 27, 1959, a similar question arose along with concern for a strong negative reaction, especially in Israel.76 He does not instruct his correspondent not to teach Talmud, but gives instructions to teach sections that are relevant to commandments obligatory for women. The choice of sections that fit this definition stems from the fear of opposition rather than from any general policy. Elements from within the h.aredi community often registered amazement at the seventh Rebbe’s approach. For instance, a (female) teacher from a Beis Yaakov school wrote to R. Schneerson with questions about his having

Woman shall encircle man

143

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

permitted women’s Talmud study. The letter, dated April 30, 1953, is worded cautiously but clearly states that teaching Talmud to women is permissible: In response to your letter from 7 Iyar, in which you wrote that as a Beis Yaakov teacher you wish to know whether the rumor that Talmud study has been permitted for women is true, though you do not specify which part of the Talmud and in what manner. The mode of instruction must depend on the character, ability, and prior education of the students. The principles for determining the specifics must be based on the Laws of Torah Study, Yoreh De’ah 247:3 and the commentaries ad loc. A summary and final ruling can be found at the end of Chapter 1 of the Alter Rebbe’s Laws of Torah Study … Additionally, nowadays, when the foundations of faith have been weakened in the minds of the masses, and especially the youth, and cunningness has already penetrated them from without, this study is vital. It is especially true that young women, who in but a few years will be anchoring their households, must be imbued with the beauty of the Torah and must become aware of our Torah’s viewpoint regarding the problems they will encounter on a daily basis as a wife and mother. Recent experience has shown just how vital this knowledge is.77 Talmud study is thus necessary due to the weakening of religious foundations. There is no concern for cunningness because it “has already penetrated them from without.” The seventh Rebbe also sees the same conditions mandating 78 the study of H . asidism, especially for teachers. A letter dated May 22, 1957, includes the messianic element as well: Regarding your question whether it is permissible to explain to women those matters of God’s Torah that will help them bear difficult times, etc.: I am amazed that there is even any doubt, especially in our generation of the Messiah’s footsteps (“ikveta demeshih.a”), the final generation of exile, during which we must prepare for the future – for the beginning of the redemption and for the redemption itself. As is well known, our Sages informed us that the future redemption will be patterned after the Exodus from Egypt, which was in the merit of the righteous women of that generation. Moreover, women were always obligated to know these types of matters, and they therefore attended the sermons of the Sages, even in the tannaitic era. All of the aforementioned is codified as Halacha in the Laws of Torah Study, including the end of Chapter 1 of the Alter Rebbe’s Laws of Torah Study, since all of the aforementioned belong to the category of laws that they need to know: as can be clearly seen, without understanding matters of Divine providence, the purpose of humankind’s creation, the true good of humankind, etc., it is difficult to withstand all the trials of the day.79 In addition to the need for women to know the laws that pertain to them and the fundamentals of faith that everyone must know, especially in challenging

144

Woman shall encircle man

times, there is also an eschatological element that mandates Torah study for women.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

“For the upper and lower world cannot be sustained without the female”80 R. Schneerson’s sweeping strides toward women’s Torah study could be construed as adopting or absorbing modern Western notions of gender equality as a binding value. This view, however, is problematic. Espousal of such cultural norms would have left an imprint on issues beyond the status of women. Since H . abad is an Orthodox movement, liberal readings of foundational texts, as Davidman and Stocks demonstrate,81 is impossible. H . abad has taken an active role in the opposition to feminist activism in the US, identifying it as dangerous to Jewish family values, inter alia for its stance on abortion. The role of women in R. Schneerson’s social equation is no different from the role of women in any other patriarchal society. The role and identity of women can be determined in several ways, including the study of guidebooks for adolescent girls and women, such as the book Betevunah Bonah Beitah,82 written as a manual for Jewish women in H . abad h.asidic society. It outlines the realm of activity of the H . abad woman and describes, using apologetic principles, a lifestyle whose center is the maintenance of the family unit, caring for the children and their education. Using the rhetoric of modern feminism, as Tovardowitz shows, is impossible under such conditions: The feminist movement, established for women’s equality, was born only after the family unit disintegrated. The feminist outlook views men and women alike as independent individuals striving for self-actualization. The family is an essential need – a family commune in which mutual assistance eases life for all of its partners. When there is a conflict with regard to individuality, this family commune is liable to disintegrate … all those who wave the banner of equality from every rooftop and speak about women’s rights only wish to undermine the uniqueness of woman. The moment a woman has rights equal to a man, i.e., that she actualizes herself as a man does, she will cease to express herself and become some sort of strange hybrid. Whatever we call her, one thing is clear beyond all doubt: she is not a woman. All of her femininity and her unique value can only be expressed and utilized to the fullest using tools suited to her essence and not tools designed for some other essence.83 The “tools suited to her essence” are motherhood and running the household. A similar model informs the book Mi-geva’ot Ashurenu:84 a lifestyle revolving around marriage, motherhood, educating her children, and a few practical commandments characteristically regarded as women’s, such as separating h.alla from dough, lighting Shabbat candles, and observing family purity laws.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Woman shall encircle man

145

Is women’s Torah study, then, a single episode of equality with no bearing on the whole picture? Is the role of women in society, as outlined in the writings of R. Schneerson, bound by the same familiar limitations on the realm of activity of women in h.aredi society? Another look at the source material reveals a more complex picture. Betevuna Bonah Beitah, for example, was written by a woman. Although the quality of the book as a work of Torah explication is not exceptional, it includes Torah sources along with numerous mentions of various psychological and educational claims and presents an organized outline of the life of a woman. As such it incorporates women’s traditional roles with that of the shlih.ut. There are other examples of H . abad women filling roles different than those expected in a conservative society. A weekly column appearing in the newsletter Sih.at Hashavu’a, distributed by Z.e’irei H . abad, offers a concise reworking of some aspects of one of the seventh Rebbe’s discourses that also relates to the weekly Torah portion. The column is signed by Z.. Levanoni, who in fact is a woman named Z.iviah. Even though there are now many women who deliver sermons and lectures, this was not always the case, certainly not when Levanoni began publishing her column. The best example of a woman who breached the accepted H . aredi framework while observing the internal norms of H . abad H . asidism – and is even viewed as a positive symbol by virtue of her work – is the late Neh.ama Greisman. Her activities on behalf of the Lubavitch Women’s Organization and the classes she gave to h.ozrot beteshuva were commemorated in a posthumously published tribute volume.85 This book is an anthology of class lectures that Greisman gave at Makhon H . ayah Mushkah Women’s Institute for Jewish Studies. The lectures, reconstructed from memory by those in attendance, were on the topics of the weekly Torah portion and H . asidism. The publication of a tribute volume, and certainly an anthology of lectures, for a woman who is not the wife or daughter of a significant Torah personality is perhaps unique in h.aredi society. Such examples reinforce the cultural-relational interpretation of texts authored by R. Schneerson as well as the aforementioned works. The idea of the “ethics of care” runs like a scarlet thread through these texts. A woman is without exception characterized by her relationships and her nuclear family, and her maternal role in this cultural context is, in fact, self-evident. D. Kaufman identifies cultural feminist motifs amongst hozrot beteshuva who joined the 86 H . abad community. Even though there is a critique of masculine culture, it is directed at Western culture, while Jewish culture is presented by some of the h.ozrot beteshuva as being feminine in principle. Women from the study cohort, she observed, offered feminine interpretations for feminine commandments like separating h.alla, observing family purity laws, and lighting Shabbat candles.87 All these texts express a certain acceptance of a uniquely feminine voice, especially in the nurturing “ethics of care” in the education of children and women as part of the family unit. R. Schneerson even mentions women’s

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

146

Woman shall encircle man

“different voice” – the “soft voice” mentioned above – with respect to Torah study itself.88 Given that Jewish sources deal more comfortably with claims of relevant differences than with those of equality and sameness, it is easier to relate to the uniquely feminine in a Jewish context. The Talmud describes how, “women are a nation unto themselves,”89 “women are compassionate,”90 and “a woman demands (marital intimacy) in her heart, whereas the man demands with his mouth – and this is a good character trait of women.”91 A model of a unique feminine identity explains the varying duties imposed on men and women by Halacha’s demands. While these writings present only a rudimentary concept of the feminine voice, the recognition of that unique voice is undeniably present. The trend of women’s Torah study that originated during R. Joseph Isaac’s tenure was part of a process to produce “strong” H . abad h.asidic women as a cadre of women activists. This concept was transformed during the tenure of the seventh Rebbe into the idea of the sheluh.a, the woman emissary.

The convergence of messianism and women’s Torah study The messianic idea, which flourished within H . abad during the latter twentieth century, drove to action. Outreach meant radical change in the traditional ways Orthodoxy viewed the outside world. As an important part of this outreach, women had to change accordingly. Women’s Torah study is part of the changing nature of a world preparing for the coming of the Messiah. The change in women’s roles and education are signs of a messianic era that will cast the roles of men and women in a new light. The apocalyptic element that grew to later dominance already informs the writings of R. Joseph Isaac after he had arrived in the US from Nazi-occupied Poland.92 R. Joseph Isaac saw America as a sort of Goshen, a land of refuge for the Jews and part of the apocalyptic process anticipated by Jewish eschatology through the centuries. These events were signs of the imminent arrival of the Messiah. The end of the Second World War and the establishment of the state of Israel transformed this messianic discourse. Messianic expectation remained, with no fixed date, reoriented toward the project of persuading the broader Jewish public to adopt a traditional Jewish way of life, especially that of the 93 H . abad movement. The messianic worldview grew stronger as H . abad became more established organizationally. R. Schneerson led a mission to encourage awareness of the forthcoming redemption and the conclusion of the exile in the present generation, a mission that was brought to fruition by the community of sheluh.im and the masses of new H . abad adherents. The idea that R. Schneerson, as the seventh and last Rebbe of the H . abad dynasty, is himself the Messiah coalesced among H . abad h.asidim during the 1980s and 1990s, then gathering significant momentum.94

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Woman shall encircle man

147

The messianic theme was already present at the beginning of R. Schneerson’s 95 tenure, arising in the very first lecture (ma’amar) on H . asidism he delivered. In R. Schneerson’s conception, Yiz.hak Krauss contends, the seventh generation of H . abad H . asidism is destined to witness the end of exile and the beginning of redemption. The role of the seventh generation is thus to complete the work of previous ones by preparing the world for the Messiah’s arrival. The exile would come to an end through the dissemination of h.asidic Torah “to every person, everywhere,”96 including children97 and non-Jews.98 According to R. Schneerson, the teshuva necessary for completing this process could be expressed in the performance of a single miz.vah, and thus the miz.vah projects (mivz.a’ei miz.vot)99 and the institution of the shali’ah.100 were created. Although R. Schneerson’s own attitude toward being hailed as the Messiah is unclear, it is an established fact that his messianism was the motivating factor behind all H . abad operations. According to Elior, women and h.ozrim biteshuva were the driving force behind the messianist (“meshih.ist”) stream in 101 H . abad. Further anthropological research would be needed to explain why this is so, but it reinforces the central role played by women in H . abad, a role that differs from what is accepted in conservative patriarchal societies.102 The status of sheluh.im and sheluh.ot should be examined in this light, for the messianic idea is a central element in the activity of the sheluh.im. The very attempt to post a young man, usually newlywed, who has been living his entire life in a sheltered h.aredi environment to a city or town light years away from any Orthodox community, or into the midst of a population that has nothing to do with traditional Judaism, inspires amazement. Whether the messianic idea preceded the institution of shelih.ut or was developed to provide its ideological basis, there is undoubtedly a strong link between them. Even though the shelih.im are an elite, they fulfill a function that applies to everyone in H . abad society. The same is true of the messianic idea: every individual, man or woman, fulfills a role in hastening the redemption. R. Schneerson wrote about the unique role of women in hastening the redemption: The Sages said that the Israelites were redeemed from Egypt on the merit of the righteous women of that generation. Similarly, the future redemption, about which it says: “As in the days you went forth from the land of Egypt, I will show you wondrous deeds,”103 will be by virtue of the righteous women of that generation. In fact, according to the writings of the Ari [Rabbi Isaac Luria], the generation of the future redemption is a reincarnation (gilgul) of the generation that left Egypt. Based on this, the righteous women of our generation, in whose merit we are redeemed, are those same women in whose merit they left Egypt.104 Consequently, even though the shali’ah. holds a more important position, there are ramifications, stemming from his status, that impact the general population. This is true of the topic of women’s Torah study as well.

148

Woman shall encircle man

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

It is no surprise that after presenting an halachic approach, the eschatological dimension arises here as well. Thus, for example, his discourse at the 105 mentions the 1990 (5750) International Conference of H . abad Women change initiated by R. Schneerson as part of the messianic process: …the reason that we have been privileged by this increase in Torah study, specifically in recent generations – even though “the generation is worthy (?)”106–since at the end of the exile emphasis is placed on preparations for the era of redemption (to the point that there is already a “taste” of something similar and modeled on the redemptional world order).107 He similarly states at the end of the discourse: …to the greatest benefit of all – that just as Israel was redeemed from Egypt due to the merit of righteous women, so too the true and full redemption will come, truly (mamash) immediately and forthwith, in the merit of the righteous women of our generation. This will also complete our “education” – for the totality of our actions and works throughout the exile were merely a form of education (in the manner of “erect markers”108) for the fulfillment of miz.vot in the future.109 Although it contains no new content, this discourse was delivered at one of 110 A similar statement from thirty the peaks of the messianism in H . abad. years earlier appears in Igrot HaKodesh: I am amazed that there is even any doubt, especially in our generation of the Messiah’s footsteps (ikveta demeshiha), the final generation of exile, during which we must prepare for the future – for the beginning of the redemption and for the redemption itself. As is well known, our Sages informed us that the future redemption will be patterned after the Exodus from Egypt, which was in the merit of the righteous women of that generation. Moreover, women were always obligated to know these types of matters, and they therefore attended the sermons of the Sages, even in the tannaitic era.111 Even though this letter was sent many years before messianic fervor began its ascent, its unequivocal statement on the place of women’s Torah study in his eschatological vision shows that R. Schneerson’s permission for women to study Torah is already deeply rooted in his messianic doctrine. The clearest expression of this connection appears in his instructions about the daily study of Maimonidean works. Since this project was linked from the outset to the messianic agenda, women’s Torah study in the framework of the daily Maimonides project also constitutes a central part of the objective of hastening the redemption.

Woman shall encircle man

149

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Read as part of the eschatological trend developing within H . abad, R. Schneerson’s sweeping permission was issued with full awareness of the opposition it would generate. As the messianic dimension grew stronger, permission was expanded and its messianic context made more explicit. The messianic dimension posits women’s Torah study as one of a series of steps undertaken to hasten the redemption. This emerges from a discourse that dealt with women’s roles in the present era: Since this generation is the last one of exile and the first one of redemption, as my sainted father-in-law, the Rebbe, leader of our generation, stated–for all of the work has been completed and we now stand ready to receive our just Messiah – my sainted father-in-law, the Rebbe, leader of our generation, made an effort to influence the women in particular, to hasten and accelerate the redemption in the merit of the righteous women of our generation … for in the future, the fullness of the sefirah of Malkhut (kingship, receptacle [mekabel], woman), whose root is higher than all of the sephirot (source of influence [mashpi’a], man), as it is written,112 “woman shall encircle man.”113 This discourse, from 1992 (Shevat 5772), was among the last ones that R. Schneerson ever delivered. The relationship between women’s roles and the messianic process is a unique one. Women played an important and active role in the movement, a very different role compared to other Orthodox groups. This phenomena required a new definition of women’s role in religious life and society. From weak, impressionable creatures needing protection from modernity, women as a class are redefined as an indispensable part of the attempt to bring about redemption.

Conclusion R. Schneerson expands the feminine sphere to its limits – too far for his critics – without destabilizing the dimorphic Orthodox universe. He does this by accentuating the positive rather than privative values of a world exclusive to women and by emphasizing “woman” as subset of “faithful Jew.” Women as a class are freed from the negative images in canonical sources traditionally interpreted to limit women’s roles in religious life. R. Schneerson’s new readings of these sources placed women at the center of religious life in a way unprecedented in the Orthodox community. The development charted here maps out a consistent pattern in R. Menahem Mendel Schneerson’s treatment of women’s Torah study. Messianism underlies his halachic position, the most radical one to emanate from the Orthodox camp. Already in the 1940s, he expressed ideas in this spirit, when he spoke during a conference in honor of the Beit Rivka schools in the US:

150

Woman shall encircle man

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

But all of this [the exemption of women even from the miz.vah of knowing the Torah] only pertains to her receiving reward as one who is commanded and performs, but as one who is not commanded and still performs, she is rewarded anyway if she wishes to study. And all of this regarding the commandment of Torah study requires further investigation. But there is another aspect of Torah study, that it “leads to action” – and on the contrary, specifically in this regard “Torah study is greater” – and regarding this aspect, women, too, must study in order to know the laws that are relevant to them … her Torah study is only a hekhsher miz.vah.114 This is the essence of all the statements that R. Schneerson would make in the decades to follow, as the understanding articulated here forms the basis for the sweeping permission he granted some thirty years later. This reinforces Krauss’s view that the messianic element was already present in R. Schneerson’s early work. The writings of R. Schneerson dealing with women and Torah show a clear pattern. Women’s education was a vital instrument to usher in the redemption. The texts spanning his entire tenure as Rebbe and even preceding his assumption of the mantle of leadership shows that R. Schneerson’s position remained consistent throughout. Any variation over time was stylistic or a matter of nuance, in the sense that he addressed the issue in greater detail as time goes by. Understanding that changes in girls’ education would encounter difficulties – given h.aredi obstinacy regarding such “sensitive” areas – he chose a strategy that concealed more than it revealed. As his leadership stabilized and H . abad gained in strength, he disclosed more of his true opinion, which had crystallized much earlier, apparently even before he became Rebbe. I am thus inclined to think that Krauss’s thesis about messianism is correct, but the question is much broader than messianism alone. This becomes clear in two texts addressed to two different readerships. One is directed at the h.aredi public, which denies women’s Torah study, and in which his permission is couched as the ad hoc solution to a particular economic reality that forces contact with the American milieu. He addresses H . abad h.asidim in a different voice, however, in which his permission is formulated ab initio as part of H . abad’s effort to usher in the messianic era. R. Schneerson’s approach includes the most sweeping permission for women to study Oral Law issued from within Orthodoxy, and certainly by a figure of such high standing. His h.asidim, men and women alike, are prepared to go to the ends of the earth on his shelih.ut, and indeed do so with a great deal of self-sacrifice, apparently out of belief that R. Schneerson’s activities were a decisive step toward ushering in the redemption and that R. Schneerson is himself the Davidic Messiah. Despite this permission, Talmud study is not a part of the curriculum in H . abad’s educational institutions for women. Although these institutions teach H . asidism on a high level, there is no serious Talmud study, even though the latter is a sine qua non for religious leadership positions in the Orthodox community.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Woman shall encircle man

151

It could be argued that the gender patterns that govern human life are immutable, despite even the efforts of a charismatic figure like the seventh Rebbe, and even in a messianic-eschatological context. Even in a society reverberating with powerful messianic tension, and even when a charismatic leader advocates change, he is incapable of bringing about change to the status of women. A radical feminist critique would contend that even R. Schneerson did not wish to change the status of women, and that his permission for women to study Torah was no more than a misrepresentation designed to quash feminist ferment by making a limited and unfulfilled concession. Such a critique, however, would be inaccurate, since R. Schneerson himself strongly encouraged this effort. The factors that kept this initiative from being fulfilled should be sought within the community. In Orthodox society in general, and in h.aredi society in particular, Torah study is a male-dominated pursuit. The centrality of Torah to religious life, coupled with the view that change in the status of women is a symptom of modernization, caused this conservative society not to accept the option proposed by R. Schneerson, despite its messianic-eschatological context. In a volume of a H . abad journal the following statement from R. Joseph Isaac Schneerson was published: The principle of not teaching them Torah is that the Torah develops sensibilities and abilities, and perhaps it will develop with armumiyut and thereby harm several areas of practice – kashrut and ritual purity – that depend on trustworthiness … but in our generation and in recent times, when all areas of education have become unruly and sullied, when boys and girls read heretical works and the venom of heresy is ever expanding, it is a duty and obligation to erect a pillar of fire to illuminate the darkness.115 In a later issue, R. Yissakhar Dov Klausner notes a discrepancy between what R. Josef Isaac wrote and a discourse of R. Schneerson where he obli116 gates women to study H . asidism. R. Nahum Shapira responded in a letter to the editor that R. Schneerson obligates women to study the basic foundation of H . asidism without which it would be impossible to fulfill the most basic obligation of Jewish life, whereas R. Joseph Isaac reluctantly permits a deeper layer that is not as vital.117 In light of this exchange, R. Yosef Simh.a Ginzburg published a brief article in which he explains that the statements of R. Josef Isaac and R. Schneerson should be understood as pertaining to commandments to which women are obligated and thus required to study. He infers from the formulation of R. Moshe Isserles that they must study them, and concludes that “to study” means to learn directly from a text and in order. Regarding the statement of R. Eli’ezer, “let the words of Torah be burned and not given over to women,” he explains that when we see that her intent is not to learn, the words of Torah should be burned – but not if her intentions are

152

Woman shall encircle man

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

appropriate. Regarding H . asidism, he adds that in light of the decline of the generations (yeridat ha-dorot), there is a unique reason to grant permission. In the end he hedges his words and surmises that there is less tiflut in the study of the words of the living God (divrei Elokim Hayim) than leaving women without that knowledge.118 These writers thus take pains to reconcile R. Schneerson’s highly innovative statements.119 Finally, some scholars of H . asidism detect a significant egalitarian message, or at the very least egalitarian themes, in h.asidic homiletic literature: The h.asidic movement was, we are coming increasingly to realize, a part of traditional society from the very beginning, wanted to be perceived as such, and was certainly not interested in making changes in such a fundamental matter as sex roles. Nevertheless there are to be found, in a theoretical derasha literature of H . asidism, themes which present a vision of radical egalitarianism and the sweeping away of traditional sex role distinction. To be sure, these themes are never developed systematically or applied in a programmatic manner … Yet it is not implausible to suggest that these themes might have both reflected and encouraged certain limited deviations from the patterns which held sway in the rest of Jewish traditional society of the day.120 R. Schneerson, however, not only developed a fully articulated doctrine justifying changes in gender roles, he actively furthered substantive change to traditional gender roles, all without recourse to liberal justifications.

Notes 1 Menah.em Mendel Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5748, vol. 3, 1990, 369. 2 George Kranzler, “The Economic Revitalization of the Hasidic Community in Williamsburg,” in New World Hasidim – Ethnographic Studies of Hasidic Jews in America, Janet S. Belcove-Shalin ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 181–82. See also: George Kranzler, Williamsburg: A Jewish Community in Transition (New York: Feldheim, 1961); Solomon Poll, The Hasidic Community of Williamsburg (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962). 3 Kranzler, “Economic Revitalization,” 191, 202. 4 Amiram Gonen, Mehayeshivah La’avodah (Jerusalem: Makhon Floreshimer, 2001). See also George Kranzler, Hasidic Williamsburg (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995). 5 Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5746, vol. 3, 1627. Virtually identical statements appear in Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 27, 235; Hitva’aduyot 5750, vol. 3, 174. 6 Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5745, vol. 4, 2221. Another concern about the temptations of American society immediately follows, where R. Schneerson explains the need to improve h.aredi seminaries to overcome the temptations of secular education. Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 34, 244. 7 Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5748, vol. 4, 1627. Also Hitva’aduyot 5746, vol. 1, 299. 8 Bonnie Morris, “Female Education in the Lubavitcher Community,” in Women in Spiritual and Communitarian Societies, Wendy Chmielewski ed. (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1998), 230; Bonnie Morris, Female Education in the

Woman shall encircle man

9

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18

19 20 21 22

23

24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

153

Lubavitcher Community: The Beth Rivkah and Machon Chana Schools (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1992). At some stage, activities among non-Jews began as well, with the goal of encouraging the adoption of the seven Noahide laws. See Est 8:17. Sefer Hasheluhim, vol. 1, 1991, 12. William Shaffir, “Boundaries and Self-Presentation among the Hasidim: A Study in Identity Maintenance,” in New World Hasidim – Ethnographic Studies of Hasidic Jews in America, Janet S. Belcove-Shalin ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 49–50. See Sefer Ha-sheluhim. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5751, vol. 2, 292. Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 12, 224. Naftali Loewenthal, “Women and the Dialectic of Spirituality in Hasidism,” in Within Hasidic Circles: Studies in Hasidism in Memory of Mordecai Wilensky, Imanuel Etkes et al. eds. (The Bialik Institute: Jerusalem, 1999), 59 (English section of volume). Bonnie Morris, “Agents or Victims of Religious Ideology?,” in New World Hasidim – Ethnographic studies of Hasidic Jews in America, Janet S. Belcove-Shalin ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 161–80. Naftali Loewenthal, “Leh.aber Olamot – Nigleh Venistar, Limud Uma’aseh: Yeshivato shel Haadmor Ha-ah.aron shel H . abad, ‘770’ U-snifeha,” in Yeshivot Ubatei Midrashot, Imanuel Etkes ed. (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar 2007), 369–94. Loewenthal, “Women and the Dialectic of Spirituality,” 19. Loewenthal, “Women and the Dialectic of Spirituality,” 22. This refers to thoughts and dreams of a sexual nature. Loewenthal, “Women and the Dialectic of Spirituality,” 23. Such works attest to a shift in the traditional patriarchal paradigm identifying women as passive creatures without drives toward recognizing that women have needs that must be addressed. It is nevertheless unclear whether this work was intended to reach women directly or via a male intermediary. Naftali Braver, “Yisudah shel Yeshivat Tomkhei Temimim Vehashpa’atah al Tenu’at H . abad,” in Imanuel Etkes ed., Yeshivot and Battei Midrashot (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2007), 357–68. For a contrasting discussion, see: Illia Luria, “H . inukh Ve’ideologia: Reishit Darka shel Hayeshiva Hah.abadit,” in Yashan Mipenei H . adash: Meh.karim Betoldot Yehudei Mizrah. Eyropah Ubetarbutam: Shai le’Imanu’el Etkes, vol. 1, David Assaf and Ada Rapoport-Albert eds. (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2009), 151–64. Loewenthal, “Women and the Dialectic of Spirituality,” 44. Loewenthal, “Women and the Dialectic of Spirituality,” 48. Loewenthal, “Women and the Dialectic of Spirituality,” 49. Bonnie Morris cites a statement of R. Joseph Isaac, contra Loewenthal, that he did not mean for women to study the esoterics of H . abad philosophy. See Bonnie J. Morris, “Women of Valor: Female Religious Activism and Identity in the Lubavitcher Community of Brooklyn 1955–87,” unpub. PhD diss., State University of New York in Binghamton, 1989, 91. Morris, “Female Education in the Lubavitcher Community,” 230. Shulhan Arukh Ha-Rav, Yoreh De’ah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:15. For sources for this ruling, see Mordechai Shmuel Ashkenazi, Hilkhot Talmud Torah Mishulhan Arukh Admor Hazaken im He’arot Vez.iyunim, vol. 1, 1983, 541–64. R. Eli’ezer Waldenberg rejects this theory out of hand. See Responsa Z.iz. Eli’ezer vol. 9, section 3.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

154

Woman shall encircle man

32 See also: Suzan Handelman, “Women and the Study of Torah in the Thought of the Lubavitcher Rebbe,” in Jewish Legal Writings by Women, Micha Halpern and H . ana Safrai eds. (Jerusalem: Urim, 1999), 143–78. 33 Schneerson, Likkutei Sih.ot, vol. 14, 37–44. The published lecture was reviewed by R. Schneerson, which attests to the weight accorded these texts. 34 M.M. Schneerson, Hiddushim Ubi’urim Lashas, vol. 1, 217–23. Similar statements on May 29, 1946 (28 Iyar 5706). See M.M. Schneerson, Reshimot, issue 30, (1996), 7f. 35 Shulhan Arukh Harav, OH . 47:13. 36 See Deut. 33:4. 37 Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 14, 43. 38 Handelman, “Women and the Study of Torah,” 171–72. 39 Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 9, 148–55. 40 Schneerson, Hiddushim Ubi’urim Lashas, 3–11. 41 Josh. 1:8. 42 This contradicts an earlier discourse from 5723 discussing the different scope of the men’s and women’s obligation: “The qualitative and quantitative character of the obligation to study does not apply equally to everyone. Some are obligated to study Torah in depth day and night; the threshold for a merchant is lower, to the point where some discharge their obligation by reading one verse in the morning and one at night, and women are obligated to study only (a) halakhot that pertain to them (b) until they know them.” Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 11, 112. 43 Handelman, “Women and the Study of Torah,” 163. 44 The discourse was first printed in Devar Malkhut section (selections from the Rebbe’s speeches not yet published in the Likutei Sih.ot series) of the Kefar Habad weekly. “Devar Malkhut – H . ovat Nashim Betalmud Torah Veh.inukh,” Kefar Habad, 26 Iyar 5750, 5–7. Reprinted in Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5750, vol. 3, 173. 45 See also Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 31, 93. 46 Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 31, 95. 47 Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 31, 97. 48 Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5750, vol. 3, 197. 49 Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5750, vol. 3, 297. 50 In another discourse delivered that year he states that women must study in groups and that each woman should strive to teach others, preferably a group of ten women (Even women and children are significant not in and of themselves, but because of the sacred number, ten). See Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5750, vol. 3, 275. He also addresses group study in Torat Menahem - Hitva’aduyot 5713, vol. 1, 116, where group study is one of the objectives of the Lubavitch Women’s Organization. 51 D. Eid, “Harebbi Milubavitch Be’psak’ Umivz.a Hadash: Z.arikh Lelamed Nashim Gemara im Shakla Vetarya,” Yated Neeman, 15 Sivan 5750, 15. 52 Eid, “Harebbi Milubavitch Be’psak’ Umivz.a Hadash: Z.arikh Lelamed Nashim Gemara im Shakla Vetarya, 7. 53 One of the best examples of the fight between the Lithuanians and H . abad is A. Neuman’s book Al Hatorah Veal Hatemura (London: n.p., 1991). R. Schneerson is always referenced as the “Rebbe,” in quotation marks. It also includes a list of prominent post-Second World War h.aredi leaders and statements they made attacking the Rebbe. Among other accusations, they criticize the Rebbe’s past as a university student and see him as someone who tried to impress secularists. 54 Sih.at Hashavu’a 179, Parshat Naso, 1 Sivan 5750, 1. 55 The statements cited in this chapter were repeated in similar and occasionally identical formats in other discourses. See, for example, M. M. Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 20, 270; Likutei Sih.ot 5750, vol. 17, 236; Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 7, 268. 56 Mordechai Menashe Laufer, Bez.el Hahokhma (New York: n.p., 1987).

Woman shall encircle man

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

68 69 70 71 72 73 74

75 76 77 78 79 80 81

82 83 84 85 86

155

Laufer, Bez.el Hahokhma, 123. Laufer, Bez.el Hahokhma, 123. See Handelman, “Women and the Study of Torah,” 176. Schneerson,Hitva’aduyot 5747, vol. 1, 330. M. Kiddushin 1:7. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5746, vol. 3, 520–22. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5746, vol. 3, 520. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5746, vol. 3, 521. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repentance 10:5; Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5746, vol. 1, 299. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5746, vol. 1, 299. For a discussion of the impact of the study of H . asidism on female students in the H . abad school system, see Miriam Ben Ami, “Hakesher bein Muda’ut Az.mit alpi Hatanya levein Zehut Ha’ani Vesignonot Hitmodedut Bemaz.avei Lahaz. Bekerev Mitbagrot Meh.abad umizeramim H . aredi’yim Ah.erim,” unpub. Ph.D dissertation, Bar Ilan University, 2006. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5744, vol. 3, 1622–23. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5744, vol. 3, 1626. Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 27, 235. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5744, vol. 3, 1625–26. Ibid. See also Peretz Uriel Blau ed., Sefer Hamitzvot LehaRambam im Iturei Hamelekh – Bi’urei Harebbe Lesefer Hamitzvot (Jerusalem, 2006), 18–25. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5746, vol. 3, 348. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 10, 32. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 11, 100. The subject of women’s study of H . asidism also appears in a letter dated Sept. 1960 (Elul 5720), on the bicentennial of the death of the Ba’al Shem Tov (Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 19, 414); letter from 1/9/1961 (29 Tevet 5721); Igrot Kodesh, vol. 20, 126; and in a letter dated 12/21/1961 (14 Tevet 5722) (Igrot Kodesh, vol. 22, 91). In a later responsum, dated 3/24/1965 (20 Adar II, 5725), the question is raised whether a female student finding difficulty studying the discourses ought to refer to other books for assistance. The response was that she need not turn to other books (apparently referring to other h.asidic tracts) since there are several levels of comprehension, and the proper path is that of slow progress; study must be for the sake of action, i.e., to reinforce faith (Igrot Kodesh, vol. 23, 355). Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 14, 99. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 18, 465. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 7, 247. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 7, 247. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 15, 151. Sefer Ha-bahir, section 173. Lynn Davidman and Janet Stocks, “Varieties of Fundamentalist Experience: Lubavitch Hasidic and Fundamentalist Christian Approaches” in New World Hasidim – Ethnographic Studies of Hasidic Jews in America, Janet S. Belcove-Shalin ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 107–33. Bracha Tovardowitz, Betevunah Bonah Beitah - Beirur Mesimoteha Vekhoh.oteiha shel Ha’ishah Ha’yehudit Bebeitah, Bah.evrah, U’ba’olam Le’or Hatorah Vehah.asidut (Kfar H . abad: Eshel, 1997). Tovardowitz, Betevunah Bonah Beitah, 38. Avraham Elimelech Gershuni (ed.), Migeva’ot Ashurenu – Leket Sih.ot Umikhtavei Harebbe Nesi Doreinu Leneshei Ubenot H . abad (Jerusalem: Kehot, 1987). Nehama Greisman, Through the Eyes of a Woman - A Chassidic Perspective on Living Torah (Jerusalem: Machon Chaya Mushka, 1998). Deborah Kaufman, “Engendering Orthodoxy: Newly Orthodox Women and Hasidism,” in New World Hasidim – Ethnographic Studies of Hasidic Jews in

156

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

107 108 109 110

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

Woman shall encircle man America, Janet S. Belcove-Shalin ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 144. For another perspective on h.ozrot beteshuva in the H . abad community in Israel, see Rachel Wurzburger, “Al Nashiyut, Meshih.iyut, Uma shebeineihem: Nashim H . ozrot Beteshuva Beh.asidut H . abad,” in Lihyot Isha Yehudiya, vol. 4, Tova Cohen ed. (Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2007), 173–84. Kaufman, “Engendering Orthodoxy,” 145–46. Schneerson, Likutei Sih.ot, vol. 31, (1991), 95. b. Shabbat 62a. b. Megilla 14a. b. Eruvin 101a. Gershon Greenberg, “Redemption after the Holocaust According to Mahane Israel-Lubavitch 1940–45,” Modern Judaism 12, 1 (1992), 61–84. Rah.el Elior, “The Lubavitch Messianic Resurgence: The Historical and Mystical Background 1939–45,” in Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco, Peter Schafer and Mark Cohen eds. (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 391. Elior, “The Lubavitch Messianic Resurgence,” 398. See also Binyamin Lipkin, H . eshbono shel Olam (Lod, Israel: Makhon Hasefer, 2000). Yitzh.ak Krauss, “Lih.yot im Hazeman–Hagut Vehanhaga Halacha Lema’aseh Bemishnato shel Harav Menahem Mendel Schneerson, HaAdmor Milubavitch,” unpub. PhD dissertation, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 2001, 16–37. Krauss, “Lih.yot im Hazeman,” 307. Krauss, “Lih.yot im Hazeman,” 239–76. Krauss, “Lih.yot im Hazeman,” 280–304. Krauss, “Lih.yot im Hazeman,” 198–230. Krauss, “Lih.yot im Hazeman,” 162–97. Rah.el Elior, “The Lubavitch Messianic Resurgence,” 400. Adam Szubin, “Why Lubavitch Wants the Messiah Now,” Albert Baumgarten ed., Apocalyptic Time (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 215–41. Micah 7:15. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5752, vol. 2, 184. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5750, vol. 3, 173. The expression “the generation is worthy” (“akhshur dara”) is taken from b. Yevamot 39b, where it appears as a rhetorical question, denying the generation’s spiritual worthiness. Here it in a similar context: even though this generation is unworthy, it is nonetheless the generation immediately prior to the redemption. This is in agreement with eschatological texts. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5750, vol. 3, 174. Jer. 31:20. Schneerson, Hitva’aduyot 5750, vol. 3,175. For a description of the climax of the messianic process, see William Shaffir, “Jewish Messianism Lubavitch-Style: An Interim Report,” Jewish Journal of Sociology 35:2 (1993), 115–28; William Shaffir, “Interpreting Adversity: Dynamics of Commitment in a Messianic Redemption Campaign,” Jewish Journal of Sociology 36:1 (1994), 43–53. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 14, 99. Jer. 31:21. M. M. Schneerson, Igrot Kodesh, vol. 10, 32. Reshimot, issue 30, 1996, 7f. The conference was held May 26, 1946. Yagdil Torah 3 (1979), 1001–2, the original letter dated is 28 Tishrei, 5701 (10/30/ 1940). Yagdil Torah 3 (1979), 1203–4. Yagdil Torah 4 (1980), 1787–88. Yosef Simha Ginzburg, “Limud Divrei Elokim Hayim Lenashim,” Yagdil Torah 5 (1982), 2040–42.

Woman shall encircle man

157

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

119 I have found evidence of such an approach at a later stage as well: Avraham Barukh Pevzner, “Beinyan Limud Torah She-be’al Peh Lenashim,” in Karnot Tzadik, Mordechai Laufer ed. (New York: Kehot, 1982), 661–66. 120 Nechemia Polen, “Miriam’s Dance: Radical Egalitarianism in H . asidic Thought,” Modern Judaism 12:1 (1992), 13.

6

Satmar and women’s education

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

Not far from the New Jersey Turnpike, where Simon and Garfunkel were looking for America, lives a group of people who are not looking for America at all. In fact, they do not even want America to find them. This is the Satmar community, a group of Jews mostly of Hungarian descent for whom resisting modernity is a strong community marker. They believe that modernity’s attack on them – in their eyes the last bastion of true, authentic Judaism – is the last battle before the coming of the Messiah and final redemption. At the heart of Satmar and its satellite communities is the writings of its founder and chief ideologist, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum. Writing extensively on the dangers of modernity and Zionism, he saw women’s education as one of the most vulnerable areas needing protection from change. Rather than directly attacking the growing scope of women’s religious education among Orthodox communities, Satmar texts reinterpret canonical sources to reduce women’s access to religious knowledge even further. Traditional boundaries to women’s education are no longer sufficiently strong and must be fortified by new readings. These new readings revive a specific line of reasoning found among some medieval commentators: the connection between Torah study and immodest behavior. The origins of this community lie in the Carpathians, in the Marmoresh area between what is now Hungary and Romania. The founder of the Satmar community, R. Joel Teitelbaum, was a descendent of a family of rabbis who led communities there for five generations. The founder of the dynasty was Rabbi Shlomo Teitelbaum (1759–1841), who wrote Yismah. Moshe, a very popular work in h.asidic literature. He was a student of Rabbi Jacob Isaac Horowitz, the Seer of Lublin (1745–1815), who wanted to spread H . asidism in current day Slovakia and Romania. He became the rabbi of the town of Oheall and his male descendants were rabbis in the area. His great-great-grandson was R. Joel Teitelbaum.1 R. Joel Teitelbaum’s brother became the rabbi of Sighet, where the family traditionally held the position, while he himself2 became the rabbi of Kraly in Transylvania and later settled in Satu Mare, which Yiddish-speaking Jews knew as Satmar (‫)סאטמאר‬. When he was finally accepted as the Satmar rabbi

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

159

in 1934, he founded a yeshiva with h.asidic leanings.3 In 1944 he and his wife managed to leave Hungary on the famous Kastner Train.4 After detention in Bergen-Belzen and eventual arrival in Switzerland, after a few months he left for Jerusalem, where he stayed until 1947, when he moved to New York. In America, R. Teitelbaum created a social network that could sustain an insular community in the heart of Western society. In the 1950s, the community forged its social and economic base in Williamsburg, New York, a section of Brooklyn, becoming one of the largest h.asidic groups in the world. R. Teitelbaum attacked Zionism as the greatest danger to face Judaism in its entire history, denouncing it as the work of the devil. The Holocaust, R. Teitelbaum maintained, was a punishment for the sins of Zionism. He lays out this ideology in Vayoel Moshe, where he claims the Jewish people are bound by divine decree to remain in exile.5 He strove to sever all connections with Zionist institutions and those who cooperated with them, including mainstream Orthodox organizations such as Agudat Yisrael.

Satmar in America When the new immigrants arrived in America, they found a world very different from Eastern Europe. While in Hungary women usually worked in the family business or a business of their own, in America they also worked for other employers.6 Women’s role in the American job market was significant, and some women worked for personal fulfillment.7 In the 1960s, employment choices inclined towards commerce instead of menial work, with much status given to jobs of a religious nature. By the 1990s, however, consumerism had influenced the community and young men were also pursuing vocational training and better English skills. Now, the most sought after jobs were professional ones, such as in the diamond industry rather than small retail or even rabbinical work. Women’s greater participation in the job market was necessary to meet a rising cost of living, and this in turn required a different attitude to women’s labor. Even though women in Satmar did not have access to advanced secular education, economic realities demanded that the Satmar educational system offer more advanced classes for girls, both in the English language and vocational skills.8 In the 1960s, an economic crisis loomed that could have destroyed Williamsburg as a Jewish area,9 but the community was able to modify its economic structure, largely because of its will to stay close to R. Teitelbaum.10 Women took part in this economic revitalization and entered more fields, such as the garment and diamond industries. Women’s entrance into the workplace began with marriage because men usually dedicated a few years to Torah study, but it also continued after men entered the workforce because of the need for extra income.11

160

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

Education of young women

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Young women in Satmar are not educated in Beis Yaakov institutions, not only because of their association with Agudat Yisrael, which cooperates with Zionist institutions, but also because of their openness to change and innovation. Even before the Holocaust and his arrival in America, R. Teitelbaum strongly opposed Beis Yaakov schools. In the Hungarian city of Betlen, he said in a sermon: I am bound to warn against and draw attention to this new false opinion that we need to build educational institutions for girls called Beis Yaakov that our forefathers had never dreamt of. And it is impossible to think that from the city of Chernovich [One of the centers of the Beis Yaakov movement] will come guidance to us about the education of our daughters in the true path of God.12 R. Teitelbaum established a network of schools called Beis Rachel, named after a daughter who died at a young age. Instruction was conducted without scripture and other canonical literature, but rather a collection of excerpts to ensure women would not have unsupervised access to the original texts. The material was written entirely in Yiddish and included benedictions over food, prayer, basic laws, reading, writing, and the secular subjects demanded by American law. The only research on women’s education in the Satmar community has been conducted by Israel Rubin,13 who identified a fundamental change brought on by immigration to America. In Hungary, there was no need for a radical Orthodox educational system for women – the sheer notion was highly problematic – but in America, the law required mandatory education. It was this compulsory schooling that led to the creation of an independent system for women’s education. The variety of secular subjects studied by the students in Beis Rachel was not designed to help women find better jobs, but rather to create Jewish women who knew how to fulfill their basic functions in the community. Even so, the general educational system was comparable to a typical American school. Since women do not learn advanced texts, when girls start second and third grade they already have a good grasp of Hebrew and know most of the material, but the level of religious study does not advance in proportion to the girls’ growing abilities. The attempts of more moderate forces in the community to add more subjects, such as psalms, met with resistance. The material in Jewish religious classes thus tends to be childish and unchallenging, leading to boredom, lack of discipline, and increased absences.14 In contrast, classes in secular subjects were appropriate to the student’s age and academic level and generated more interest. Even though there were several restrictions placed upon secular subjects – textbooks were censored, students could not borrow books from the library, and the school system ended at age sixteen – English still became the spoken language among the girls.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

161

Rubin describes how students became an opposing force to the traditional elements in the community. The eighth grade girls, for instance, demanded a graduation ceremony and a yearbook, both privileges they had never had before. Their demands were accepted. Later, Rubin found these trends had become stronger. Changes in the management of the educational system led to power being held by the local school administration. Thus the Beis Rachel institution in Borough Park had a well-developed secular curriculum and was run by a woman from outside the Satmar community. Students studied an anthology of English literature only minimally censored in ways that did not affect the character of the literary works. There were also classes in “environmental” studies, which were, in fact, science classes. The students went on field trips, even some to Washington, DC.15 In Williamsburg, however, where the women’s school was less advanced, secular subjects were not taught at such a high level. In the 1980s, the students in the Borough Park School were able to obtain, with the help of their mothers, the opening of a twelfth grade. Similar pressure led to offering classes in word processing – instead of embroidery and sewing crafts, which conservative elements supported. Their concern was women working in offices outside of the community. Another major change is that the vast majority of the faculty, including the secular subjects, were from the local community.16 The educational system for girls became a point of tension between Rebbe Moshe Teitelbaum and his opposition, who had created a competing girls’ educational system called Ikvei Haz.on, as well as a similar institution for boys. As early as the 1960s, the educational system for girls became a controversial subject for moderates and radicals, focusing the role of the secular studies department of Beis Rachel on strengthening women’s status within the family structure of Satmar.17 This trend continued into the 1980s, when women made their opinions very clear and were able to develop the secular studies department, which then enlarged the gap between the underdeveloped religious classes and secular subjects.18 The growth of the Beis Rachel network was exponential: by the 1990s, students numbered tens of thousands.19

R. Teitelbaum’s position concerning women’s Torah study R. Teitelbaum hermeneutical strategy rereads the canonical texts to restrict women’s Torah study even more than before. As he identifies any change in Orthodox society as an infiltration of modern views, the new policies of Beis Yaakov are a dangerous reform that must be stopped. The most economical and authoritative method is to show that the canonical sources themselves prohibit this completely. R. Teitelbaum especially addresses the issue of women’s Torah study in the role of secular studies for both boys and girls.20 Anyone whose sons attended Jewish schools offering secular subjects would not be allowed to enter the synagogue. Even though this ostensibly only applied to boys, R. Teitelbaum explains, it also applied to daughters:

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

162

Education as a root cause of promiscuity It is said in the name of righteous people that the study of secular topics is more damaging to females than males because males also study the holy Torah and sometimes the light within it will turn them to the right path, and it can at least slightly negate the venom of secular studies. This is not the case for females. They do not have the power of Torah, since for females the study of the Holy Torah is damaging. As the sages said, he who teaches his daughters Torah is like teaching her folly. And, as Rashi interpreted, that she will learn from it cunningness and do things in hiding as they learn from the scripture since just as wisdom comes into a person also cunningness comes into a person. That is something that could tempt a person to do bad things, even more so, if a person has external wisdom, that is damaging also to males even more so than women.21

This text presents a motif that lies at the foundation of Satmar texts, tiflut as a category of deviant behavior, promiscuity. Textual study will lead women to “do things in hiding.” R. Teitelbaum discusses women’s Torah study most comprehensively in a chapter of Vayoel Moshe entitled “Article on the Holy Language,” which voices his objection to modern Hebrew in everyday life.22 R. Teitelbaum’s stance on women studying the holy language was categorical – women should not learn it: Up till now I have talked about the study of the holy language by males but study of the holy language by girls clearly has no place. Even the Sifri said, “your sons” rather than “your daughters.” Because of this they say when the young son begins to speak his father speaks to him in the holy language. We see here clearly that the Holy Scripture does not mention girls specifically, in accordance to the Tosefta, which states that the study of the holy language is after the study of Torah. Also the reason to learn the holy language is so that one will be able to study the Torah and girls do not study Torah at all. Specifically, in the opinion of Rabbi Eli’ezer that the law is according to him … therefore according to all opinions, women are not obligated to study the holy language but the dangers and obstacles that can arise from studying it are clearly also relevant to them.23 R. Teitelbaum then offers a novel explanation for barring women from studying Torah, transforming what was originally an exemption into a strict prohibition. According to his view, Ben Azai permits study because if a woman were to be subjected to the Sotah ordeal, the merit of Torah study would protect her. As this ritual is no longer conducted, there is no reason for a woman to study Torah. Since an explicit reason is given for the disagreement with R. Eli’ezer – that learning could save her from punishment – one cannot say Ben Azai would disagree in other situations.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

163

R. Teitelbaum maintains that a tannaitic disagreement cannot be claimed if not explicit in the text.24 He suggests that Ben Azai only allowed women to study the biblical chapters referring to Sotah, not because of the commandment to study the Torah, from which women are exempt, but as warning against sexual promiscuity.25 R. Teitelbaum says that the sages cannot pronounce an edict countermanding the explicit words of the Torah unless it is to prevent sin. For R. Teitelbaum then, the exemption of women from Torah study in tractate Kidushin is actually a prohibition. To clarify Rabbi Eli’ezer’s opinion that the prohibition of Torah study does not apply to the Halachot necessary for the daily life of an observant Jewish woman, R. Teitelbaum establishes four categories of study: (1) Written Torah in the most superficial manner, permissible to women, (2) in-depth study of the Written Torah, which is forbidden, (3) the study of Oral Torah, which is also strictly prohibited, and finally, (4) Torah study to inculcate moral virtue, which girls are permitted to learn. Studying the esoteric part of the Torah, i.e., the Kabala, is also clearly forbidden to women.26 Since men are obligated to study the logic of the laws, they must study in the original language. Women, however, who only need to know the practical ramifications and are barred from studying the origins of the law, are also prohibited from studying in Hebrew.27 R. Teitelbaum offers another novel explanation for the prohibition of women studying Torah, based on the opinion of Raban Gamliel that “no disciple whose internal character does not correspond to his exterior may enter Beit Hamidrash.”28 When Raban Gamliel was named Nasi, he ordered a guard to stand at the entrance of Beit Hamidrash, and he did not allow anyone to enter and study unless proven to be of good character. When he was removed from office, the guard was sent away and all were allowed to enter and study. R. Teitelbaum discusses the generally accepted reading that one cannot instruct a student of bad character. However, the sages disagreed with Raban Gamliel when the character of the student is unclear. In such a case, he should be taught. R. Teitelbaum sees a parallel to women’s Torah study: In order to understand the reasoning of Raban Gamliel for being so careful in the teaching of Torah and thereby preventing much Torah from being learned in Israel, we should say that it is very similar to the rigorousness concerning the study of Torah for women. As it is said in the Yerushalmi and cited in Tosfot Sotah, “Let the words of the Torah be burnt rather than given to women.” Even though it is clear that women have the presumption of good character and we believe their testimony in issues concerning prohibitions, which are punished in Karet [death by the hands of heaven], the study of Torah is different. As it was written in the Tur in section 246, most women do not intend to learn and will turn the words of the Torah to words of folly because of their feeble comprehension. So we see that someone can have a presumption of good character,

164

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

but have a mind which is not strong enough to be worthy to be given the words of the Torah, so much so that it is better to burn the words of the Torah than to give it to that person. This was the opinion of Raban Gamliel that even among males, not all are worthy to be given the words of the Torah. Rather, they must be tested because the obstacle presented by an unworthy student is great.29 R. Teitelbaum broadly assumes that women as a class are simpletons – an a fortiori argument based on women’s inherent intellectual weakness. The disagreement between Raban Gamliel and the sages only concerned males who have a greater obligation to Torah study than women, especially because males have the potential to become great scholars. Therefore, women, whom by all opinions the Torah exempts from study, should be prohibited from studying Torah because their character is unknown: Even more so in light of what was cited from the Tur that we should be more concerned with women that they will take the words of Torah and turn them into folly. The major reason according to all is that it is forbidden to teach her if her internal character does not match her external character. What was added by Rabbi Eli’ezer, that you cannot teach your daughter Torah, is said even if he is sure that her exterior is like her interior. And on this Ben Azai disagreed. However, if a man is not sure of her character, on this, no one disagrees with Rabban Gamliel that you should not teach her. According to this, we find that in this era that we do not have the skills to judge if a girl’s interior is like her exterior. So at any rate it is forbidden for women to study Torah.30 Since the tannaitic disagreement exclusively concerned men it should not be widened to include women. The fear of women’s knowledge grows stronger when modernity takes its toll on traditional Jewish identity. The correct approach, R. Teitelbaum suggests, would be to establish a school for girls where they would be taught what is permissible according to Jewish law. First of all, a woman should learn the laws pertaining to her daily life, and on that, no one disagrees. There are many such rules relevant to both men and women such as the laws of the Sabbath, the benedictions, etc. Women should also be instructed in the ways of virtue and good morals, and R. Teitelbaum suggests that such instruction would rescue them from all the bad influences of this generation.31 R. Teitelbaum mentions that there was a disagreement between the two medieval texts Sefer H . asidim and the Maharil, which rules that girls should learn from their mothers. R. Teitelbaum asks why this generation could not even rely on daughters learning from their mothers: In this last generation, the heart of the generation changed for the worse. It is not enough what girls get from their fathers and mothers. In many cases, even the fathers and mothers are not very knowledgeable…the

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

165

issue is that many errors came to be in girls’ education even in the homes of the observant because of a lack of understanding due mainly to mothers that educated their daughters and the influence of the currents of the world…as in the days before the flood where even animals were influenced to behave immorally. Even though they had no mind they still had evil inclinations within them, even more so a man who has an evil inclination from birth … therefore, in this day and age, girls need some kind of education that will be under the supervision of knowledgeable people who know the opinion of the Torah concerning girls’ education. Then if fathers and mothers will help education in all the details, perhaps we will merit worthwhile offspring.32 There is an obvious similarity to the H . afez. H . ayyim. Jewish society is crumbling because of the pressure of modernity and radical steps are needed to stop this process of attrition. While the H . afez. H . ayyim identifies the main factor as a social mobility bringing about instability in family traditions, R. Teitelbaum points to women’s intrinsic potential for immodesty. The only way to combat the immorality that controls the public sphere is to repristinate the old model of functional education and reject any kind of textual study. If someone is not convinced of the need to establish girls’ schools, R. Teitelbaum adds, then he should not be overly scrupulous because the Ashkenazi custom follows R. Isserles, who ruled in accordance with R. Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, a student of the author of Sefer H . asidim. One who wants to limit women’s education as a pious act based on the Maharil cannot do so because there is no room to rely on this minimizing opinion since it is not mentioned in the Shulh.an Arukh. R. Teitelbaum acknowledges the need for a system of schools for girls, post factum the historical reality demands it even though it was not customary in the past to establish girls’ schools: Concerning that in previous generations they did not create schools for girls, there are several reasons which need not be elaborated in print since these reasons are irrelevant now. Because of our many sins today I see our misfortune in the low stature of our generation. We need this thing – some kind of education for girls, and we cannot specify and write everything in print.33 He later mentions the opinion of the H . afez. H . ayyim concerning the Beis Yaakov system and argues that the need for an education system for women does not justify the contemporary pedagogical policies of Beis Yaakov: There are fools that rely on the words of the H . afez. H . ayyim, of blessed memory, who wrote in his book Likutei Halachot … “But because of our many sins, the tradition of our forefathers has greatly weakened. It is a great miz.va to teach them H . umash, Nevi’im, and Ktuvim [Pentateuch,

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

166

Education as a root cause of promiscuity Prophets and Writings] and the morals of our sages of blessed memory so the matters of our holy faith will become true to them.” All sorts of empty words were added to this and they have besmirched this righteous man [by saying] God forbid, that he said that a clear law from the Talmud, the Rishonim, and the Shulh.an Arukh is not relevant to our times and, God forbid, to uproot such laws, but they have eyes and they do not see. For what he wrote, to teach them H . umash and its interpreters and the morals of our sages of blessed memory and all others, he thought were not prohibited [to teach] according to the law as we have explained before.34

For R. Teitelbaum, establishing girls’ schools is a concession: the best option in a bad situation. It would be far better if girls would learn not in schools but at home. He strengthens his opinion by noting that the H . afez. H . ayyim permitted the study of H . umash for girls but, R. Teitelbaum asserts, the H . afez. H . ayyim did not allow the use of Rashi’s commentary. What the H . afez. H . ayyim meant, R. Teitelbaum explains, was that they should be taught in the same manner as Z.e’enah Ure’enah was written. “We have seen with our own eyes,” he adds, “that all righteous women that read these books in Yiddish did not understand the exegetical part but their heart observed the morals and the virtues of our rabbis of blessed memory.”35 In conclusion, R. Teitelbaum outlines several basic tenets: women are inherently incapable of studying Torah. The slight chance that a specific woman will be different does not merit the danger of giving knowledge to women. At no point in Jewish history was there a possibility of change, for this intellectual flaw in women is an immutable fact of human nature. Women’s nature has not, and will not, change and the reform in women’s education in the interwar period were not made by Torah scholars. There could be no clearer expression of R. Teitelbaum’s primary assumption: while other rabbis might be concerned with protecting women from Torah, he is unmoving in wanting to protect the Torah from women. In an undated responsum written to an anonymous inquirer, R. Teitelbaum holds that the body of knowledge relevant to women is quite small in scope.36 The question was what did Ben Azai permit women to learn? Only the parts of the Torah dealing with Sotah or more than that? and to what degree is the distinction made by R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi between the commandment to know all the Torah and the one to study the Torah day and night relevant to women? R. Teitelbaum sees the disagreement of Rabbi Eli’ezer and Ben Azai as centered solely on those biblical passages dealing with the Sotah ordeal and by no means other parts of the Torah, since everyone agrees that women are exempt from Torah study. The anonymous inquirer had noted that in the Yerushalmi, Ben Azai disagreed with Rabbi Eli’ezer and thought that women would also come to the Temple Mount during the ceremony of Hakhel to learn rather than just listen to the Torah being read. According to

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

167

this view Ben Azai made no difference between men and women, since the ceremony of Hakhel did not entail reading the biblical chapters concerning Sotah. R. Teitelbaum answers that the reason that Ben Azai did not distinguish between men and women was because the segment read during the ceremony of Hakhel states that both learning of Torah and supporting the learning of Torah were at the center of Jewish life. Women who are obligated to support their husbands and sons in the study of Torah also need to come and learn the importance of the Torah in Jewish life and their duty to support their husbands and sons in learning the Torah. R. Teitelbaum mentions another reason for this prohibition: most women do not intend to study but to turn the words of the Torah to folly. The cunningness that will develop in them will result in great damage. Even though there are exceptions, the legal rule is that women as a class should not be taught Torah. It is better to burn the words of the Torah than to give it to women. He says Ben Azai thought that women could say a benediction over commandments from which they are exempt. Thus Ben Azai did not see any reason to differentiate between men and women in the ceremony of Hakhel. He also did not differentiate between hearing legal rules and learning their sources, unlike Rabbi Eli’ezer. The anonymous inquirer claims that women are exempt from the commandment to study the Torah day and night, but they are not exempt from the commandment to know all the Torah. R. Teitelbaum rejects this proposal categorically. Both obligations are part of the same commandment, and women are exempt from all parts of it. Therefore, the basic rules of Jewish law relevant to women’s lives which women are required to learn, according to all opinions, did not constitute learning Torah. It is merely a necessary action that enables women to fulfill different commandments and does not constitute actual learning of Torah. While R. Teitelbaum acknowledges that the fulfillment of the necessary conditions to perform a commandment is also an act worthy of praise and divine reward, he notes that it has nothing to do with the commandment to learn the Torah. It is only relevant in the context of a specific commandment for which women learn the necessary rules. Concerning the benediction over the Torah made by women every morning, R. Teitelbaum explains that women may recite it because they are allowed to study the Written Torah. It is also customary among Ashkenazi Jews to allow those who are not obligated to perform a commandment to recite the benediction over it.37 A discourse about women without women Other rabbis have discussed women or addressed them directly – whether from a patriarchal stance or not – such as R. Wolf, the founder of Beis Yaakov in Bnei Brak, who gives women a clear role not only as mother but also as provider freeing men for Torah study. R. Teitelbaum, however, does

168

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

not even envision a prototype of womanhood besides briefly disparaging women as a class as “light-headed.” R. Teitelbaum sees women as hidden agents of change. The way to quell such dangers was to create an educational system, a necessary evil in an American society destroying the traditional Jewish world – or what was left of it after the Second World War. This is the only compromise R. Teitelbaum is willing to make as a barrier against the tides of modernity threatening to engulf the last island of authentic Judaism. It envisions a woman with the minimal knowledge to perform basic religious duties and nothing more.

The Satmar community after the days of R. Teitelbaum R. Teitelbaum died on August 20, 1979, at the age of 93, leaving a large and initially united community.38 It quickly became clear, however, that this unity coalesced around R. Teitelbaum’s charismatic personality, and after his death began to fragment. R. Teitelbaum’s nephew Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum was named as heir,39 but his leadership qualities were not as strong as his uncle’s and his hatred of Zionism not as strident. Relatively quickly, initial friction turned into virulent and sometimes physically violent conflict.40 This deterioration was the result of several factors, such as the activities of R. Teitelbaum’s second wife, Feige, who became an independent source of power in the community,41 and opposition to Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum, the son of the new leader, who was named rabbi of the new Satmar community in Kiryat Joel.42 The opposition did not, however, create a separate community, apparently seeing Satmar as a comfortable social unit but less as a spiritual home. Since the younger Teitelbaum was also unable to muster enough support to expel the opposition, the community remained externally united.43

Rabbi Samuel Judah Geshtetner: Satmar’s views of womanhood One Satmar author dedicated an entire book solely to the question of women’s Torah study. Published anonymously in Brooklyn, New York, in the summer of 1993,44 a revised edition followed in 1996, this time disclosing the name of the author: Rabbi Samuel Judah Geshtetner.45 The subtitle shows the goal of the book to be the “explanation of the laws that prohibit the study of the Torah by women, in terms of the origins, nature, limits and details of this law.” In essence, however, the book is a diatribe against women’s Torah study based on the character of women and their purported weaknesses that further rationalize the superiority of men. The Haskamot (rabbinic approbations) come mainly from rabbis in Satmar communities and others of Hungarian origin ideologically close to them. The first Haskamah is from a relative of the author, Rabbi Nathan Geshtetner, followed by Rabbi Samuel Halevy Vozner, and many others. These two rabbis, it will be recalled, also made public their objection to the current policy regarding women’s education in Beis Yaakov.

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

169

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The first part of the book, called “The Torah of Your Father” (Torat Avikha), does not deal with Halacha, but instead offers many examples of instructions by decisors and h.asidic rebbes who objected to Torah study as part of girls’ education. He objects to abandoning the customs of the forefathers, that is, the tradition in Hungarian communities of educating girls at home, and strongly opposes the Beis Yaakov system, where girls learn religious topics integrating the study of Rashi. The author knows that this approach is not popular in the h.aredi world: This is nothing more than the fruit and result of the exile to America. Here, many different communities were mixed and because of that, boundaries and traditions of those who came from different places in Europe became blurred. In the olden days, everyone used to keep his own tradition. Back then, no one could even think about the possibility that we would want to rely on all sorts of leniencies and customs from other places. And we do not intend to revoke their customs, heaven forbid! If someone keeps his tradition, no one will think it possible to disregard tradition or will want to rely on leniencies and customs from other places. We do not mean to negate them [other communities’ customs] because it is clear that they have some qualities that we lack and we have qualities that they lack. Anyway, everyone should keep his tradition and not learn from others anything but their qualities. This issue [women’s Torah study] is not considered among their qualities.46 Women’s nature is to be preoccupied with clothing, and learning Talmud cannot change this.47 Increasing the scope of women’s study will sully their natural innocence,48 while Torah study “will not be useful to fill the emptiness of their minds.”49 If women have free time after household chores, then they should be taught the laws that pertain to them, re-read their schoolwork, or practice needlepoint. The trend to teach women Torah, he concludes, is the biblical sin of the tree of knowledge. The same way it resulted in Eve’s trickery, so does this. It is also a clear example of the spirit of the time, where liberal forces demand equality. He dedicates a large portion of text to Beis Yaakov, which he refuses to call by name, and its integration of Torah study into girls’ education with the approval of Polish rabbis. The creation of the Beis Yaakov system, or as he calls it the “known education institution,” was a result of an ad hoc leniency in an era of shmad (forced conversion), that is, the rampant secularism infecting all of Polish Jewry. Moreover, the rabbis who approved of the Beis Yaakov system did so only retroactively, and they did not determine the curriculum. Rabbis whom “we follow did not agree to those arrangements.”50 The establishment of a school catered to secular parents, not to religious ones. He discusses at length the letters of the H . afez. H . ayyim, where he describes the growth of the secular, Zionist Tarbut educational system and the Bund Yiddishist schools. R. Geshtetner says this background, which

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

170

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

can only be described as a time of forced conversion, was the reason to be lenient. In the introduction to the second edition, the author sounds a personal note. He began to deal with women’s Torah study after an otherwise undescribed “personal matter involving this issue” called for a more exhaustive look. He did not intend to seek out new prohibitions. On the contrary, even after he determined there was no room for leniency, he was reluctant to publish his discoveries, but was forced to obey the orders to publish from rabbis that gave approbations to his book even though he would probably suffer because of it.51 Legal reasoning regarding girls’ Torah study The second part of the book is primarily a collection of opinions from the Rishonim and the Ah.ronim. There is little of R. Geshtetner’s own work, which otherwise consists of selecting interpreters who minimize the options for women’s education. This redactional method, of course, allows considerable insight into his perception of women and their natural character. Tractate Kidushin exempts women from the commandment of learning the Torah, but there is also a rabbinic prohibition against it.52 When he discusses the primary source in tractate Sotah, R. Geshtetner counters the interpreters who read Ben Azai as permitting women to study the entire Torah with R. Teitelbaum’s understanding that Ben Azai only allows learning the chapters pertaining specifically to the Sotah ritual. R. Geshtetner adduces a similar interpretation from Tiferet Z.ion, written by Rabbi Ben-Z.ion Yadler, one of the leaders of the h.aredi community in Jerusalem at the beginning of the twentieth century. Yadler attempts a new resolution of the contradiction between Ben Azai and Rabbi Eli’ezer. Since Ben Azai says women can study, and by that he means only those laws that pertain to them, so Rabbi Eli’ezer does not believe women are allowed to study the Torah in its entirety. Yadler acknowledges that this interpretation goes against the understanding of all the Rishonim on this text. Another discussion concerns how much Ben Azai obliges women to study Torah, if at all. R. Geshtetner cites opinions of Ah.ronim such as the Leh.em Yehudah, who sees the words of Ben Azai as obliging women to study, though others see it as an obligation but not a rabbinic one. Others, like the Me’iri, thought that Ben Azai did not mean to obligate women to study Torah at all, saying he merely suggested it would be “good advice” to teach women Torah.53 Tiflut as adultery: knowledge and sexual promiscuity Following his strategy of minimizing women’s access to Torah, R. Geshtetner focuses on interpreters who link Torah study to a “cunningness” that could aid seduction and promiscuity. R. Geshtetner cites an interpreter of the

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

171

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Yerushalmi who fears that adulterous behavior could result from a woman learning the story of Leah and Reuben’s mandrakes,54 for women would not understand that Leah’s behavior was to promote a holy goal. R. Geshtetner offers a stricter interpretation and claims: When she wishes to fornicate with a man she will read aloud for him only this verse “You must come in to me, for I have surely hired you with my son’s mandrakes” in order to suggest the matter to him. This is what is meant by the saying “a women who is set apart is one of the things that destroy the world,” meaning that towards other people a woman shows herself as honest, righteous, and set apart in dealing with the Torah, but in reality, her intention is to call and hint to the man that he should come and fornicate with her. There is no question about this: the cunningness in it is very clear. But if he does not understand or will not agree, she can pretend to be honest in that she is studying the Torah … By studying, she will know how to conceal her fornication.55 R. Geshtetner follows even more thoroughly the hermeneutical trajectory in R. Teitelbaum’s literature: the boundaries of women’s learning are drawn as narrowly as possible because of its inherent sexual danger to men. Minimizing women’s learning also governs R. Geshtetner’s treatment of Maimonides’ purely intellectual understanding of tiflut. He cites interpreters who think Maimonides does not agree with Rashi, the latter explaining that the reason for the prohibition is a danger of fornication. R. Geshtetner, however, holds that Maimonides also warns of fornication. The Me’iri explains that a woman who is not worthy of learning will misunderstand and try to display her so-called wisdom in public. For R. Geshtetner, this sort of immodest behavior is the slippery slope to fornication.56 He also cites the author of Mesharet Mosheh, who also holds that Rashi and Maimonides do not disagree: limited intellect and promiscuity are actually two sides of the same coin. This is an opinion R. Geshtetner enthusiastically endorses, as he infers further proof in Maimonides’ distinction between Oral and Written Torah – a reading with no apparent source in rabbinic literature. Studying the Oral Torah sharpens cunningness, which allows a woman to behave immodestly and conceal it, while study of Written Torah results in no such seductive wiles. R. Geshtetner’s extensive interest in this point stems from a perception that all women have a predisposition for immodest behavior. He grounds this perception by quoting the Mishnah that cites Rabbi Joshua, who said that a woman wants one measure with tiflut more than nine measures with abstinence. R. Geshtetner mentions Maimonides’ interpretation of this Mishnah, which explains that a woman prefers a penniless philanderer who satisfies her physical needs to a man who will support her financially but rarely be at home. Just as R. Teitelbaum could have easily forbidden women’s Torah study just by a simple reading of canonical texts, so R. Geshtetner employs the

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

172

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

motif of adultery to strengthen his ideological position. None of the Rishonim – or for that matter, any of the other decisors who dealt with the issue – choose to sexualize the question so consequentially. Satmar texts comb through canonical sources for any possible correlation between text-based education and promiscuity. Even Maimonides, who centers the discussion on cognitive abilities, is suddenly speaking of chastity. Most women, Maimonides said, do not intend to study Torah and their study will result in tiflut. From this R. Geshtetner infers that Maimonides holds not one, but two reasons for the prohibition. The first is sexual tiflut; only the second is that women are light-headed, unable to fathom the depth of the Torah, which was Maimonides original sense without the hermeneutical double entendre. A woman will either disrespect the Torah or misinterpret it in order to engage in that which should be forbidden.57 Women and the study of Written Torah The tendency to narrow the scope of women’s learning comes especially to the fore when R. Geshtetner discusses the halachic adjudication of women’s Torah study. R. Geshtetner counters an apparent leniency – the Bah. allows women to study on an irregular basis, and the Taz allows even regular study if it is perfunctory – with an argument from silence. Since other decisors such as the H . afez. H . ayyim, Arukh Hashulchan, and Shulh.an Arukh Harav make no direct mention of Bah. and Taz, it must mean they disagreed with them.58 A look at the rabbinical sources he discusses in depth shows that R. Geshtetner engages in shaky analogies, catchword connections, or sheer eisegesis of sources that do not remotely deal with women’s Torah study. Rabbi H . ayyim David Azulai’s interpretation of tractate Kala says that a man who drinks from the hand of a woman is like the person who drinks from the hand of a harlot, since the Torah does not go through her mouth. R. Azulai interprets that according to Maimonides women are forbidden to study Written Torah, but if a woman did learn, she could not be censored. She is still considered someone in whom Torah does not “run through.” Thus R. Geshtetner claims that R. Azulai does not agree with the Taz or the Bah., who allowed women to learn the Written Torah in an elementary manner.59 R. Geshtetner summarizes that his own ruling accords with the Taz and the Bah., but faithful to his minimizing approach, he warns that this still does not constitute permission to learn regularly. He cites the responsum from Shoel U’meishiv, and clarifies that since this responsum does not mention the position of the Bah., and only mentions the Taz, it permits women to study the Written Torah regularly. R. Geshtetner explains that the responsum was written before the establishment of girls’ schools, “and anyway the scenario of learning the Written Torah not in an in-depth manner by women was only on an irregular basis so there was no need to mention the stipulation.” He even muses that this answer was written fleetingly without attention to detail.60

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

173

Even though this book is an amalgam of primary sources, R. Geshtetner adds an element of his own. R. Geshtetner notes that according to the Taz, one may say that women can also study the Oral Torah in elementary fashion, as with legal rules for example. R. Geshtetner is quick to say that one should not invent any leniency regarding girls’ education, specifically because the opinion of the Taz is not based on conjecture, but rather, a barayta (tanaitic material not mentioned in the Mishnah) from tractate H . agiga that deals with women’s role in the Hakhel.61 R. Geshtetner also points out that from the phrasing of Sefer H . asidim, that when women are to learn the legal rules pertaining to them, the author refers exclusively to those precepts they need to know in their daily lives and no others.62 The definition of Written Torah In the fourth chapter of his book titled “The Definitions of Written and Oral Torah,” R. Geshtetner makes considerable efforts to reduce the term “Written Torah” to the barest minimum. He claims that simplistic study of Written Torah entails only the most literal meaning. He bases this on the barayta from H . agiga on the Hakhel ceremony, which essentially entails hearing the biblical chapters read aloud with the Aramaic translation via an interpreter.63 In the same vein, he analyzes the Bah.’s opinion that permits irregular study and determines that there is no reason to permit girls to study Written Torah in school, since that makes the study systematic. Also, studying from a book would be regular study.64 The next phase in the definition of the Written Torah is the relationship between Pshat and Midrash, that is, the relationship between the literal meaning and the exegetical. R. Geshtetner’s primary position is that exegesis on the verses of the Torah is not considered Written Torah. Therefore women may not study commentaries. A foundational text of elementary education in traditional Jewish education, Rashi’s commentary is the first focus of study for young boys. Its extensive use of exegetical material leads R. Geshtetner to the conclusion that women should not be permitted its study. R. Geshtetner emphasizes that it does not matter if students are using a regular Torah or photocopies: they should not study Rashi’s interpretation in any printed form. He supports this prohibition with the responsum of Shevet Halevi that students should study Torah by hearing rather than reading. This preference of hearing over reading perhaps best summarizes the basic tenet of R. Geshtetner’s book: exclusion not only from actually dealing with the text but also from anything that could be remotely interpreted as dealing with the text. The book per se is a central symbol in Jewish culture. In fact, books might be the most well-known Jewish symbol, because Jewish culture from the destruction of the Second Temple until the beginning of the Zionist movement was mainly interested in intellectual achievements rather than material culture. By forbidding this central symbol, the preference for

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

174

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

teaching by hearing rather than reading is an emblematic expression of the position of the Satmar community. The opposition to women’s study of the Midrash naturally leads to the question whether literature such as Ze’enah Ure’enah, which was very popular among Eastern European women, could be permitted in Satmar communities. After all, the work is an adaptation of Midrash literature on the weekly Torah reading. Learning the virtue of piety and the history of the Jewish people in books such as Ze’enah Ure’enah, R. Geshtetner explains, is simply not a form of Torah study. It is more a study of history, of geschichte. Yet what is the difference between learning geschichte and studying Rashi’s commentary? The prohibition against women studying Torah refers to knowing. He offers as example the story of the rich woman who came to Rabbi Eli’ezer with a question about the Torah. This matron wanted to gain knowledge by learning and studying Torah, which is prohibited. However, learning Jewish history or virtues from specific books does not fall under the definition of studying Torah, a point which he emphasizes several times.65 In the second edition, R. Geshtetner explains that reading this kind of literature does not lead one to understand the exegesis of the verses because of the gap between the languages. Readers cannot deduce any more than narrative details and not penetrate to what led the sages to prefer a specific exegesis. He reiterates R. Teitelbaum’s objection to teaching women the holy language66 and also muses that perhaps Ze’enah Ure’enah was not written specifically for women.67 This is a salient example of R. Geshtetner’s reinterpretation of traditional texts dealing with women’s learning. Ze’enah Ure’enah was a huge part of Jewish women’s lives in Eastern Europe for an incredibly long time, yet R. Geshtetner has turned it into a possible mistake. Such a conclusion is even surprising in the Satmar context. A responsum written by the rabbi of the Satmar community in Antwerp, Belgium, Rabbi H . ayyim Joseph David Weiss, also concludes that women should study the Written Torah without Rashi’s commentary. But as far as books in Yiddish like Ze’enah Ure’enah, they are permissible because it is impossible to understand an exegesis of the sages after being translated and rephrased into a new language. In other words, the adaptation to Yiddish reduces the holiness of the text. In a similar reasoning he notes that learning the holy language should be forbidden for women because learning it might give them access to parts of the Torah forbidden to them.68 Women teaching themselves The discussion of women teaching themselves has changed over the years in R. Geshtetner’s writings. In the first edition, published in 1993, he devoted an entire chapter to the issue. He asked how Maimonides could rule that a woman who studied the Written Torah would be rewarded, although less than a man, since such study transgressed against the words of the sages. He bases his answer on the phrasing of the author of the Prisha, an interpretation of the Tur, which says that a woman who studies Torah alone will not turn it

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

175

into words of folly.69 R. Geshtetner concludes, first, that if her father transgressed this rule and taught her Torah, then even if she has good intentions, she has transgressed a rabbinical decree. Second, it is forbidden for a girl who studied material not permitted to her to review her previous studies because this does not constitute studying independently, which would have ensured she would not misuse it. Third, she is not allowed to listen to men study because that also does not constitute studying independently. With these premises he explains Maimonides’ position on this question as well as the historical presence of well-educated women in Jewish communities.70 He grounds his position in the long responsum of Ma’ayan Ganim,71 although it is clear that he only knows this text second hand via Torah Tmima. The intent of the author of Ma’ayan Ganim is that a wise woman can learn Torah independently, not from another person. He concludes that learning Torah with Rashi’s interpretation, even in a Yiddish translation, is not approved study since it does not prove exceptional wisdom. Even in the Satmar circles there were rabbis that were less restrictive of self-study than this position articulated in the first edition.72 R. Geshtetner’s understanding of this issue later became more extreme. In 1997 he published an article in a Satmar journal in response to a class given in Monsey, New York, by an unnamed rabbi. In the course of the article it becomes clear he is referring to a Monsey rabbi, R. Ben Zion Vozner, grandson of R. Samuel Vozner, the author of Shevet Halevi. In the class the “unnamed rabbi” claimed that a woman could study Torah and Talmud independently. The unnamed rabbi’s permission for independent study was based on several additional reasons. First of all, he invokes the explanation of the Maharil that women recite the blessing over Torah learning. This explanation distinguishes between learning Oral and Written Torah, allowing women to study independently rather than being taught by others. R. Geshtetner’s article reveals an interesting use of language. Although he does not mention the name of the rabbi he attacks, he also does not try to hide the rabbi’s identity. Between the lines, he perhaps even points to whom he means. When he mentions Rabbi Vozner’s opinion, he uses a very aggressive tone. For example, he says that Rabbi Vozner’s conjecture is very weak and that Vozner wanted to innovate at the expense of the original meaning of the text. Furthermore, everywhere R. Geshtetner mentions the permit (Hebrew heter) he uses quotation marks. The unnamed rabbi, R. Geshtetner says, based his reasoning only on his own interpretation and in fact invented the entire explanation. In his substantive response R. Geshtetner retracts his original permission for independent study by women. The first reason stems from the “innovative” nature of the position. He characterizes this view as innovative because of a basic hermeneutical position: By focusing on some of the fine points in the phrasing they ground their innovation [in sources]…however there is one clear deficiency in this

176

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

“method” which is the fact that until they came, this idea never crossed the mind of the rabbis from the Rishonim to the Ah.ronim…it is, by the way, worthwhile to point out the path taken by this kind of “decisors.” They never suggested such innovative conjectures in order to be stricter and to forbid something that is accepted to be permitted, according to the literal understanding of decisors. They always use this method only in one direction – to be lenient and to permit that which is to be prohibited.73 R. Geshtetner mentions that in the first volume of his book, he conceded there were grounds for permitting women to study independently. Later on, however, he reversed this position. Rabbi Vosner claims that since the Mishnah prohibits a man teaching his daughter, women may study Torah independently. R. Geshtetner objects, since the main element of the commandment to learn Torah is to learn from others. Therefore, the phrasing of the Mishnah should not be interpreted formalistically, since it refers to the basic performance of the commandment in the same way that the Torah commands fathers to teach their sons when young and that all adult men have an independent duty to learn Torah. In the days of the Tannaim this was done orally rather than from written texts. A theoretical independent study thus becomes impossible in practice.74 R. Geshtetner attacks women learning independently by arguing that the Maharil refers to learning the Written Torah, and even then, it is only permitted after the fact. At this point, however, R. Geshtetner’s argument becomes problematic. Since women recite the daily blessings over Torah study, he reasons, a permission for them to study might be inferred. R. Geshtetner counters that this blessing was enacted because the sages feared that women would learn the Written Torah, thus transgressing a rabbinical decree. In other words, “even though there is still an initial prohibition” of a woman studying the Written Torah, the sages wanted them at least to say the blessings over the unsanctioned study.75 The logical flaw here is that the sages would not have enacted a benediction over an action they themselves prohibited. One might claim – rather cynically – that since women are incapable of understanding the Torah in its full sense, their exploiting it for promiscuous purposes is moot. With their congenitally limited cognitive skills they could never acquire the requisite “cunning.” R. Geshtetner contends, however, that even if women cannot understand the Torah for themselves, they should not study it,76 because the main rationale for the prohibition is that women will misconstrue the text due to their lack of abilities and turn the words of the Torah into words of folly.77 In Maimonides’ silence about whether women may study independently R. Geshtetner hears a prohibition. It is illogical, he argues, that Maimonides would choose an indirect phrasing when saying that women gain a reward for studying but not as a person who is commanded to do so.78 After he reverses his initial position, however, R. Geshtetner himself does not mention that the prohibition of independent study by women does not do

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

177

justice to the words of Maimonides. Maimonides says that a woman who learned even though she was not commanded to do so would still gain a reward, although less than someone commanded to learn. This is a reward given for an act of transgression, R. Geshtetner explains, so this interpretation must be illogical, though completely in agreement with the surface meaning of the text. R. Geshtetner’s aggressiveness, along with the difficulties in his interpretation, reinforces a trajectory already heavily influenced by R. Teitelbaum. Because women’s education is identified with modern trends that put the community in danger, the need to minimize the ability of women to study forces an artificial interpretation. R. Geshtetner diverges from traditional means of conducting halachic discourse by disregarding traditional interpretations of the texts. He smooths over contradictions or disagreements among canonical sources – an ambiguity that in other writers generates a great deal of discussion – and tries to harmonize them with his own particular melody. Rashi and Maimonides are reinterpreted to say the same thing. With no tangible grounds, texts like that of Rabbi Azulai are pushed into the same halachic positions as those of the Taz and Bah.. The scope of the Written Torah is narrowed to include as much as possible in the realm of the Oral Torah. The sheer volume of the halachic debate is unusual: R. Geshtetner takes a minor halachic issue that revolves around a miniscule number of short texts and interprets and reinterprets to the point he produces hundreds of pages, when he could much more easily have achieved the rhetorical goal of limiting women’s access to Torah study simply by citing canonical sources. Most importantly, however, all is done in the name of a socio-historical “truth”: changes in women’s education can lead to catastrophic results that can destroy the last true remnants of Judaism. He recontextualizes the canonical text to focus on modernity and its dangers to a small group of faithful adherents. Even in a formalistic legal system, judicial discretion is an irreplaceable necessity. R. Geshtetner’s choice of such a minimizing interpretation, coupled with an historical explanation for his halachic reasoning and a consolidated meta-historical world view, shows that R. Geshtetner’s readings of canonical texts are less exegesis than eisegesis. In its isolationism and massive criticism of modernity, R. Geshtetner’s worldview stems from a perception unique in the Jewish world – even in the h.aredi community. The debate over women’s study of Torah touches the foundations of R. Geshtetner’s perception of this world. A change in women’s status is an undeniable sign of the modernity endangering Jewish existence. As in many fundamentalist groups, R. Geshtetner sees women as hypersexual creatures naturally inclined to promiscuity. The tiflut which Maimonides reduces to an intellectual category expands for R. Geshtetner into an orgy of female lust and trickery. Controlling women thus becomes a central tool to control reality. The question of women’s education, which appears only in the context of fighting modernity, justifies adopting artificial hermeneutical

178

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

techniques because any weakening of community boundaries would allow Western liberalization to slip in.79

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The polemics of 1997 A hotly polemical exchange took place in several American halachic journals in 1997 about the women’s Torah study. A very aggressive article in the Satmar journal Pinat Yikrat responded to Rabbi Shlomo Grass, the dayan of the Belz Community in Borough Park, New York, who published an article favoring women’s Torah study. He was accused of spreading heresy and destroying the foundations of Orthodoxy. The major halachic dispute, however, concerns Grass’s novel application of an ancient, rarely applied rule of Jewish law: “if the rationale is null, then the regulation is also to be nullified (batel ta’am batla takana).” This legal reasoning has wide implications, since it deals with the limits on the rabbinic establishment’s power to legislate and its ability to change the regulations of the sages, and thus guaranteed to elicit a strong response. This principle appears in the Talmud in tractate Beiz.a where Rav Yosef says, “whatever was forbidden by a majority vote requires another majority vote to permit it.” An ordinance accepted by the majority of the Sanhedrin can only be nullified by another majority.80 Moreover, the Rosh writes that if something were decreed by a vote of the sages, but at some point should be overturned because the original reasons were now invalid, the decree could still not be nullified without a majority of the sages in favor.81 However, there is hardly a general consensus among other Rishonim about this rule. Maimonides believes that only a court with both greater wisdom and number could nullify a decree, a safeguard necessary even when there was no longer a reason for a prohibition in the real world. Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquières (known as the Ravad), however, believes the decrees of the sages were virtually inviolate. The power to nullify the ordinances of the sages – for any reason – is a tremendous one, thus caveats on the use of this power are essential. In fact, the wide disagreement among rabbinic authorities on its proper use led to the rule not being used at all. Favoring women’s Torah study, R. Grass suggests it is inconceivable that so many religious communities would openly violate the Torah by creating women’s schools. Therefore he sets out to show such schools have a basis in halachic literature82 as he outlines the historical context that led to the creation of the Beis Yaakov system. Remaining an observant and a God-fearing person, he says, became an ordeal in the face of all the challenges modern society presents. It became impossible to continue old traditions of girls’ education. Even the strictest educational institutions have added to their curricula new topics that were forbidden in the past, because leaders and educators saw that students disinterested in their curriculum strayed to the secular world.83 To strengthen his position, he cites one of the students of Rabbi Jacob Kanyevski, who was one of the leaders of the h.aredi Litvish

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

179

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

community in post-war Israel. He argues that the prohibition of women’s Torah study refers only to the daughter and not the wife, and there is a need for leniency where livelihood is concerned, even more so in these days, since if a person will not teach his daughter Torah she will turn even more to folly because she will read secular books.84 The article describes women’s Torah study as a medicine whose positive effects outweigh any negative side effects: And I will present to you a parable of a similar example: medicine. It is clear that a healthy man does not take medicine because it is known that all medicine harms the body somewhat. That being said, a sick person who needs medicine will not think at all of the small damage the body suffers because the small amount of damage is indistinguishable compared to the great benefit of curing him from his disease.85 Against this historical background, the author attempts to justify a new reality he admits contradicts Maimonides and the Shulh.an Arukh. The basic difficulty is that even if Torah study can prevent young girls from turning to secularism, this alone would not justify the nullification of a rabbinical prohibition. Thus he discusses the actual validity of the rabbinical prohibition of women’s Torah study.86 The article suggests three applications for the rule batel ta’am batla takana. The first derives from the Tosefists in tractate Avoda Zara, dealing with a prohibition against uncovered water: water that was uncovered but also out of sight should not be drunk, since snakes and other venomous creatures could contaminate the water. This decree, according to the Rishonim, was not followed since relatively early times. On this the Tosefists said, Snakes are not found among us and we should not be wary of uncovered [water] and we should not say that something that was voted on needs to be nullified by another vote because clearly when they prohibited it originally, they only prohibited it in a place where snakes were common.87 R. Grass also refers to an interpretation on the Shulhan Aruch written by Rabbi H . izkiyahu Desilva (called the Pri h.adash), in the seventeenth century, and others, who explain that the rule can only be valid in all times and places when the scope of the initial prohibition was equally universal with no possible scenario where an action could have been permitted. If a prohibition was not absolute, then the absence or inapplicability of the reason also nullifies the prohibition.88 The prohibition against women studying Torah was thus only relevant when there was a fear of tiflut. Now, however, when the educational system actually saves girls from tiflut, the prohibition does not apply. With the reason for the decree no longer valid, so the decree itself is nullified and it is permissible, even praiseworthy, to teach Torah to girls.89 The second application is based on the opinion of the Rosh that argues that when the reason for the decree is clear and uncontested, then there is no need

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

180

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

to nullify it by vote.90 R. Grass deduces that since the reasons for the prohibition against women studying Torah are clear, there is no reason to abolish it by a vote in the Sanhedrin. The third application is based on the opinion of Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michael Weisser (known as the Malbim) in his book Arz.ot H . ayyim, where he asserts that there is no need for a vote when it is unknown whether the rabbinical decree was passed in the Sanhedrin, since in the case of women’s Torah study, there is no source to say that this decree was subject to such a vote. This conclusion is also based on the opinion of R. Abraham Avli in his commentary Magen Avraham, which argues that when a decree results from a fear of transgression, when the fear has passed, there is no need to nullify the vote in the Sanhedrin.91 Grass also writes that even if there is a chance of tiflut, according to the Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Maharshal) and others, for a decree whose reason is nullified, there is reason to assume that if implementing the decree will lead to damage, there is no need to nullify it in the Sanhedrin.92 He summarizes all this in light of the opinion that a woman who studied independently proved she would not turn the words of the Torah to folly; therefore, fathers can send their daughters to schools run by God-fearing teachers and headmistresses and under the leadership of the great rabbis of the generation, because it is clear they will not turn the words of the Torah into words of folly. R. Grass says that those rabbis who did not support the Beis Yaakov system had reason to fear innovations in women’s education, but these fears, however legitimate initially, proved unwarranted.93

The Satmar response The greater part of volume thirteen of the Pinat Yikrat dedicated to responding to R. Grass is occupied by an anonymous article called “The Times Have Not Changed.”94 In a handwritten, photographically reproduced approbation, the son of Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (the Satmar Rebbe after R. Joel Teitelbaum), Aaron Teitelbaum, sees a grave danger in R. Grass’s claims, since they could potentially nullify the entire Torah. In different variations, this slippery slope argument is a recurring motif in the Satmar response. A polemical overview of the modern era, first the Reform movement that wished to change Jewish traditions, and then Zionism. After the war, claims the author, the next battle heretics waged against the Jewish tradition was through the infiltration of heretical ideas into the h.aredi community under the guise of ad hoc solutions. One of the best examples of this is girls’ education that includes material forbidden to women.95 The Satmar response explains that the major source of anger is over Grass’s reasoning. The notion that mere societal change could nullify an explicit prohibition in Jewish law is foreign to Satmar communities, but the very basis for the Reform movement and religious Zionism.96

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

181

Statements in rabbinic literature about the nature of women are as valid now as they were then.97 Time after time, the articles in this volume reiterate that any claim that times have changed, and therefore human nature has also changed, is dangerous to the stability of Halacha. The seeming success of the Beis Yaakov institutions is also no criterion for justification, as the Satmar Rebbe himself, Moshe Teitelbaum discerned, “the actual truth is that if we are unable to see the tiflut in them, it’s all the devil’s doing.”98 If tiflut is not immediately apparent, there should be even more concern because it means that a girl is clever enough to hide her immodest actions.99 Perhaps the damages of tiflut will only reveal themselves in her old age and in a generation where immodesty is so widespread the danger is even greater.100 The underlying premise is that nature does not change, and even more so, human nature and the fundamentals of human society do not change. Therefore, the entire discussion of batel ta’am batla takana is moot. However, the authors also wish to refute Grass’s basic premise on its own terms. R. Grass neglected to mention the end of the quotation from the Pri h.adash, which says that if there is reason to believe that the annulled reason for the decree will once again become relevant, then the decree remains valid. In the case of women’s Torah study, the authors warn, the fear of tiflut is still acute.101 Another reason rejected by the authors is the opinion of the Rosh that a known reason for an enactment which is now void does not require a vote in the Sanhedrin. They find support in the view of Rabbi Moses Sofer in his responsa H . atam Sofer that this opinion seems to be without basis. Also rejected is the opinion of R. Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michael Weisser that there is no need for a vote if it is not known whether the decree was voted on in the Sanhedrin. Actually, there is evidence to suggest a vote did take place, since there is a disagreement among Rabbi Eli’ezer, Rabbi Yehushua, and Ben Azai.102 The article sees these claims as so groundless that it is almost impossible to address them in a serious halachic debate. Moreover, it is impossible to claim kim li against the opinion of the Shulh.an Arukh, and when a decree became a well-observed custom among Jews, it should not be rescinded because of the principle, “do not forsake your mother’s Torah.” These lines of reasoning renders the option of nullifying a decree impossible. The article concludes with several historical claims. Above all, it argues that tiflut is not a minimal risk in the Beis Yaakov and also that girls can be educated successfully using the old system, since the daughters of the Satmar and associated communities prove that education outside the Beis Yaakov system is more successful.103 Grass’s comparison to medicine is aggressively rejected. Torah for women, they argue, is far from a medicine, but more like a poison: it would be similar to a sick person taking a lethal drug. The only true medicine, they say, is to abide by all the rules of the Torah as understood through the generations.104 They also reject the claims that the leaders of European interwar Jewry agreed to the establishment of Beis Yaakov.105

182

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The volume of Pinat Yikrat ends with a sermon given by the Satmar Rebbe of that time, Moshe Teitelbaum, proclaiming that the survival of the Jewish people is first and foremost dependent on the structure of the Jewish home. The most important task for Jewish women is to help their husbands develop the ability and willingness to learn Torah. That is the reason his uncle R. Teitelbaum put so much effort into the growth and success of the Satmar educational system for girls, Beit Rachel. The major danger in this era, he claims, is American prosperity that blinds Jews and leads educational institutions to change traditional methods of Jewish education.106

Conclusion R. Joel Teitelbaum’s halachic position on women’s Torah study is not the result of ignoring the reality of life in America – the very opposite is true. Because he is fully aware of American life, he fortifies the boundaries that separate his community from the larger American culture. He could have applied existing rulings – say, Maimonides or the Shulh.an Arukh – but he creates a new interpretive model to forbid women to study Torah. By crafting this model upon the disagreement between Ben Azai and Rabbi Eli’ezer, his halachic conclusion is that the matter is unequivocal and not open to any discussion, since it is such a foundational part of the religious system. This conclusion is expressed in one of the final remarks R. Teitelbaum makes in his article about the holy language: It is clear that you need to be extremely careful not to learn with girls what was forbidden by our sages of blessed memory and was adjudicated by Maimonides, the Tur, the Shulh.an Arukh without disagreement…and those who wish to outsmart the words of our sages of blessed memory, these are the Sadducees and the Baytusim [a cult from the second temple period declared heretical by the Pharisees] that did not believe the words of the sages and this needs to be carefully observed. What our sages of blessed memory have forbidden completely is so for all generations because we do not have anything but this Torah that the Rishonim adjudicated from the words of the Talmud and in all the Halachot, and they are constant and everlasting and even Elijah does not have it in his power to nullify the words.107 Several sociological and anthropological studies during R. Teitelbaum’s reign document Satmar reactions to modernity. After three decades some of these scholars returned to conduct further fieldwork examining the trends identified in their earlier research. Their results provide a broad overview of the issue: a rare opportunity, given the small number of such studies conducted among American h.aredi communities. Studies by Rubin, Kranzler, and Poll show a very conservative community that comes to a new country with liberal values foreign to them. The scholars naturally focused on the compromises Satmar

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

183

was forced to make to survive as a community in the new country. The discussion of Talmud-Torah and women is, however, not one of them. R. Teitelbaum chose instead to strengthen community boundaries. The best example of this policy is the novel argument supporting his decision about women’s Torah study: the existing prohibition was neither strong nor clear enough, and there was a need to re-read the early sources, mining them for more restrictions. His purpose was to convince his readers of the urgency of the prohibition in light of the temptation to be lenient. Insularism through a strict interpretation of halachic texts further strengthens the walls of his community against modern America. This, of course, was the same fear which had led rabbis in support of the Beis Yaakov system to relax the prohibition. Both sides recognize the same problem of assimilation and loss of identity; the difference lies in the reaction to modernity. While H . abad seeks a solution by outreach, Satmar answers by retreating from the outside world. In later texts, this trend became more extreme. In fact, the books written by R. Geshtetner offer a rare example of halachic fundamentalism. His goal of arriving at halachic conclusions consistent with his ideology yields a text that consciously integrates meta-historical perceptions. R. Geshtetner uses many sources that serve his initial objective to minimize the areas of learning permitted to women. This combination reflects a natural development comparable to a similar evolution in R. Teitelbaum’s texts. Since R. Teitelbaum identified modernity as a major enemy of Jewish life and stressed halting the infiltration of Western ideals and norms into the community, the next generation must continue to fortify the ideological frontier behind which the community would be safe. R. Teitelbaum, alongside other leaders of radical Orthodoxy, brands h.aredi communities in dialogue with Zionism as part of this ostracized camp: any collaboration with such a community is strictly prohibited. This view does not allow the next generation of the Satmar community to lower its guard. The basic premise of this society necessitates an unending war with modernity, and strictness becomes a form of religious expression. This is the source of R. Geshtetner’s motivation for arriving at problematic and sometimes far-fetched explanations of texts. Women are identified as agents of change: people who carry with them the potential to change the traditional value system. The constant references to women’s “intrinsic” characteristics reinforce the description of R. Geshtetner’s texts as fundamentalist. The importance of R. Geshtetner’s book thus lies not in its influence, but rather what it says about the perception of women in the Satmar community. Ultimately, the underlying hermeneutic of Satmar adjudication of the question of women’s education is a direct causality between knowledge and promiscuity. Women are naïve and ignorant Eves in need of protection. Once having partaken of the forbidden fruit of Torah knowledge, however, they are transformed into Liliths, seductive and promiscuous. In this typology, no room remains for exceptional women whom rabbinical tradition had always allowed access to sacred texts.

184

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Notes 1 In 1935 a book was published in Hungarian on the history of the Teitelbaum family. The author, a Jewish journalist, wanted to tell the story of the Teitelbaums from their perspective. He does not publish the documents he used, but the work does shed light on the family’s self-perception and the atmosphere in which they worked. David Shen, Shoh.arei Hashem Beharei Hakarpatim (David Alfasi trans., Jerusalem: Shem, 2005). 2 There are a number of biographies about Rabbi Teitelbaum, most of them by Satmar H . asidim. Alexsander Daytch, Boz.ina Kadisha, 2 vols (Brooklyn: n.p., 2000); Shlomo Gelbman, Moshiaan shel Yisrael, 5 vols (New York: n.p., 1988). The only one not written by a H . asid is Avraham Fuchs, Ha’admor Mesatmar (Jerusalem: n.p., 1980). For a partial biography see Yehoshoua Weissman, “Ha’admor Mesatmar Veh.asidut Satmar Betkufato, (1886–1979)” unpub. MA thesis, Haifa University, 2001. David Meisels, The Rebbe: The Extraordinary Life and Worldview of Rabbeinu Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe (Lakewood, NJ: n.p., 2010). 3 Weissman, “Ha’admor Mesatmar Veh.asidut Satmar Betkufato,” 63–70. 4 Zionist activist Israel Kastner organized a train with 1,684 Jews that left Budapest on June 30, 1944 bound for Switzerland as an attempt to broker a deal to save Hungarian Jewry. The train was detained in Bergen-Belzen for some months and then allowed to leave. 5 Yoel Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe (New York: 1974), 21–176. 6 Israel Rubin, Satmar: Two Generations of an Urban Island, 2nd ed. (New York: Lang,1997), 193. 7 Rubin, Satmar: Two Generations, 152. 8 Rubin, Satmar: Two Generations, 235–36. 9 Kranzler, Williamsburg Memories (Lakewood, NJ: CIS Publications, 1988), 210, 268. 10 Kranzler, Hasidic Williamsburg: A Contemporary American Hasidic Community (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995), 29–52. 11 Rubin, Satmar: Two Generations, 170–78. 12 Yoel Teitelbaum, H . idushei Torah, vol. 2 (New York: 1972), 85–86. 13 Rubin, Satmar: Two Generations, 161–86. 14 Rubin, Satmar: Two Generations,170. 15 Rubin observed classes where 14- and 15-year-olds were simulating trading on Wall Street. See Satmar: Two Generations of an Urban Island, 179. 16 Rubin, Satmar: Two Generations of an Urban Island, 179–82. The administration apparently preferred students spending their time studying secular subjects rather than religious ones. For example, a letter to the editor of Pinat Yikrat, a Satmar rabbinical journal, dealing with women studying Torah, complains that the students’ time should be filled by religious studies or more secular subjects such as astronomy or medicine. A. Spitz, “Beinyan Limud Torah Lenashim,” Pinat Yikrat 14 (1997), 85. 17 Rubin, Satmar: Two Generations of an Urban Island, 234. 18 Rubin, Satmar: Two Generations of an Urban Island, 238. 19 Rubin, Satmar: Two Generations of an Urban Island, 279. 20 Yoel Teitelbaum, Divrey Yoel, vol. 2 (New York: 1982), Section 141. 21 Teitelbaum, Divrey Yoel, 515. 22 Yoel Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe (New York: 1961), 403–53. 23 Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 433; see also Teitelbaum, Divrey Yoel al Hatorah, vol. 4, 94. There he emphasizes another reason for prohibiting the study of Hebrew because it is a Zionist language founded on heresy. One should only speak Yiddish in daily life. 24 Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 433.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Education as a root cause of promiscuity 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

185

Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 435–36. Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 436. Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 433. TB Berachot, 28a. Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 442. Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 444. Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 444. Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 446. Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 448. Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 451–53. Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 451–53. Teitelbaum, Divrey Yoel, vol. 1, section 84. There is another short responsum in Divrey Yoel, vol. 1, Section 99, dealing with a woman asking to give a eulogy. R. Teitelbaum refuses this request, further discussing women and their ability to perform Sh-h.ita (ritual slaughter). While the Talmud allows women to perform the ritual, because they are not allowed to study Torah the custom is to forbid them from partaking in it. J. Mintz, H . asidic People – A Place in the New World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 91 Mintz, H . asidic People, chapter 12. Mintz, H . asidic People, 298–310. Mintz, H . asidic People, 211–12. Mintz, H . asidic People, 209–10. The best example was the establishment of a new school called Bnei Yoel in Kiryat Yoel against the will of R. Teitelbaum and his son. However, they lacked the power to stop the opposition. Mintz, H . asidic People, 227–312. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama (New York: 1993). All citations are from this edition unless otherwise stated. Torat Imecha – Kitzur Dineiy Nashim Betalmud Torah (Monsey: 1996). Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 47. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 50. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 45. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 54. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 64–65. Torat Imecha – Kitzur Dineiy Nashim Betalmud Torah, 22. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 100–101. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 105–6. Reuben, the son of Leah, collected mandrakes in the field. Rachel desired the mandrakes, but Leah was angry because Rachel already had Jacob’s love and still wanted more. Therefore, Leah demanded Rachel trade Jacob for the mandrakes. As a result, Leah’s last son is born. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 108. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 110. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 123. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 134. Other texts he cites are the result of a similar strategy Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 135–38. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 141. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 143. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 145. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 148. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 150. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 158–76. Torat Imecha – Kitzur Dinei Nashim Betalmud Torah, 98–100.

186

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

Education as a root cause of promiscuity Torat Imecha – Kitzur Dinei Nashim Betalmud Torah, 148. H . ayyim Weiss, Vayan David, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: 1993), section 142. Torat Imecha – Mahadura Kama, 218. Torat Imecha – Kitzur Dinei Nashim Betalmud Torah, 219–21. See chapter 1, pp. 22–23. Menashe Klein, Mishne Halachot, vol. 10 (New York: 1998), section 161. Samuel Geshtetner, “Beinyan Isur Limud Torah Lenashim Mepi Nashim,” Pinat Yikrat 10 (1996), 23. Geshtetner, “Beinyan Isur Limud Torah Lenashim Mepi Nashim,” 25. Geshtetner, “Beinyan Isur Limud Torah Lenashim Mepi Nashim,” 26. Geshtetner, “Beinyan Isur Limud Torah Lenashim Mepi Nashim,” 27. Geshtetner, “Beinyan Isur Limud Torah Lenashim Mepi Nashim,” 29. Geshtetner, “Beinyan Isur Limud Torah Lenashim Mepi Nashim,” 28–29. Karen McCarthy Brown, “Fundamentalism and the Control of Women,” in Fundamentalism and Gender, ed. John Stratton (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 75–201. TB. Beitza 5b. Piskei Harosh, Beitza ch. 1, section 3. Shlomo Grass, “Bdin Limud Hatorah Lenashim,” Or Israel 8 (1997), 27. Grass, “Bdin Limud Hatorah Lenashim,” 30. Grass, “Bdin Limud Hatorah Lenashim,” 31. Grass, “Bdin Limud Hatorah Lenashim,” 32. He defines the Mishnah in Tractate Sotah as something which is self-evident. As shown in the first and second chapter, however, there were those that claimed that this does not fall under the title of rabbinical degree. Tosfot, Avoda Zara, 35a s.v. hada. Grass, “Bdin Limud Hatorah Lenashim,” 35. Grass, “Bdin Limud Hatorah Lenashim,” 36. Shut Harosh, 2,8. Grass, “Bdin Limud Hatorah Lenashim,” 38–39. Grass, “Bdin Limud Hatorah Lenashim,” 40–42. Grass, “Bdin Limud Hatorah Lenashim,” 50. Anonymous, “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” Pinat Yikrat 13 (1998), 85–115. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 87–89. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 89. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 91. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 94. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 95. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 96. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 98. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 99–100. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 101–5. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 106. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” 107–11. This anonymous article is accompanied by an anonymous letter written by a European rabbi with a similar response. He reiterates most of the halachic reasoning in the first article and presents a lengthy historical excursus on the pre-war Beis Yaakov system. His basic premise is that Beis Yaakov in the interwar period was more like a youth group than a school. The main objective was to present Written Torah study to girls so they would not be influenced by the books of heretical teachers. The journal also published a proclamation by the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the USA and Canada, a rabbinic umbrella organization for Satmar rabbis and other allied communities, warning against any changes in the field of girls’ education (123).

Education as a root cause of promiscuity

187

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

106 Moshe Teitelbaum, “Drasha Begodel Ma’alat H . inukh Bnot Yisrael,” Pinat Yikrat 13 (1998), 7–9. On pages 10–11, a letter was published by Moshe Yitzh.ak Gvirtzman, among those closest to R. Teitelbaum. He says that most books that deal with good virtue and character are too difficult for girls. The book most suitable to them is a very basic one called Menorat Hamaor. 107 Teitelbaum, Vayoel Moshe, 451.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

7

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

Modern Orthodoxy, Charles Liebman argues, is a movement striving to end Orthodoxy’s social isolation. He identifies two kinds of “modern Orthodox”: those who self-identify as Orthodox, but when facing a halachic obstacle simply bypass it, and those who wish to remain committed to Halacha, but do so by interpreting it in a way compatible with modernity. Liebman predicted this movement would disappear, its members either secularizing or turning to the h.aredi world. Yet the movement survived, at the same time creating a significant ideological basis of published work.1 Modern Orthodox discourse is defined by feminism, the rights of minorities, democracy, and the scientific study of Halacha. This discourse became more voluminous, Liebman explains, because the religious public in Israel, unlike its American counterpart, grew more slowly, yet eventually reached a threshold where it felt more confident of its independence.2 This community does not fear secularism. Since it does not meet religious needs and perhaps not even national ones, secularism offers no real alternative. This only applies to Israel, not America, where secularism and assimilation remain real options. The encounter of graduates of religious Zionist yeshivas with secular academia, especially in the liberal arts, engendered a discourse about modernity and Orthodoxy. A hermeneutical strategy adopted by many moderate Orthodox scholars, particularly those engaged with women’s issues, speaks of meta-Halacha, core principles and beliefs, ideally informing micro-Halacha, the minutiae of observance. In the context of women’s roles, meta-halachaic arguments harmonize the modern Western principles of gender equality with the traditional Orthodox understanding of gender. The deeper principle governing the interpretation of canonical texts is that with no superiority of man over woman, acknowledging and uplifting differences between the genders allows women to express their unique voice through the richness of Orthodox tradition. In a society where women begin to take on significant public roles, there is concurrent ideological support, whether perfunctory or well-constructed, aiming to justify it. Within moderate Orthodoxy, women play a larger part in religious life,3 not least because of women’s access to formal Torah study.4

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

189

Although decisors in America such as R. Feinstein were not Modern Orthodox, their positions developed on this issue, if only in increments, because of the changes modern society forced on Jewish Orthodox life in America. A similar process occurred in h.aredi society in Israel. The difference, however, is ideological. H . aredi decisors in America may have conceded change out of socio-economic necessity, but there is no concomitant change in values. Even R. Schneerson was unique: while he advocated a scope of women’s learning wider than any other Orthodox leader and redefined women’s role in a messianic project, he did not adopt modern Western values. Moderate Orthodox discourse, however, accommodates modern Western values and attempts to restate them as Halacha. Moderate Orthodoxy has great interest in the issue of women’s Torah study. The movement has a self-reflective investment in dealing with both ideological questions of gender and the role of women in the religious world that necessitates discussion on women’s access to texts. The vast majority of women engaged in intensive Torah study, mainly the study of Talmud and Halacha, do so at institutions identifying with moderate Orthodoxy. In the 1980s in Israel and America, institutions known as Midrashot5 were specifically founded to grant women access to higher Torah study. Beginning as post-secondary institutions, they generally offer a one-year course of Torah study.6 Recently some have offered a “female kollel” with 3–5 years study of Halacha comparable to programs for the training of rabbis.7 Another avenue is becoming a “halachic adviser” [Yoez.et Halacha], a title given to women who have studied family purity laws extensively as well as anatomy, physiology and reproductive biology. They are available to answer women’s question about purity issues but make no official halachic rulings.

The religious reforms of Modern Orthodoxy Eastern European Maskhilim of the mid-nineteenth century were the first to demand educational reforms for women. Many women then obtained extensive secular education, but remained relatively ignorant of Jewish texts. Moderate Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe was broadly associated with religious Zionism, and from the beginning, Jewish education for men and women was high on the agenda of the religious Zionist parties, Mizrah.i and Hapoel Mizrah.i. In fact, debates about Zionist education fueled by the strong desire to create a religious educational system committed to Zionist values helped create the political structure of religious Zionism.8 In looking at women’s roles in the formative years of religious Zionism, Lilakh Rosenburg-Friedman points out the centrality of women’s education to its discourse. The independence of religious education as well as the double curricula for religious and secular topics were often discussed, and the need for a system of women’s education became a keystone for the Zionist movement’s aspiration to build a modern state.9 The first discussions began in the 1920s when various groups within Hapoel Mizrah.i called for reforms that

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

190

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

would allow women to take part in the national effort to build a new Jewish society. The significance the Mizrah.i attributed to religious education led to a formal recognition of religious autonomy in education at the Zionist Convention in London in July 1920.10 Changes in secular education enabled women to take part in the Zionist enterprise in both traditional and non-traditional roles. The relevant question, however, is whether women in religious Zionism filling traditional roles as teachers would also bring change to religious education. In 1932 the curricula for boys and girls were somewhat different, though most subjects were not gender-specific. In religious studies, however, the curriculum authors insisted on an alternative tailored to the needs of women. Women, they explained, were more emotional, unlike men, who were more intellectual. Boys studied Talmud while girls only studied the prayer book. Both studied the Mishnah, but with a different emphasis. Boys were being prepared for later Talmud study, while girls studied Mishnah as a primary text instead of the Talmud.11 A committee inquiring into the state of Mizrah.i education meeting in 1937 agreed that women should not study Halacha at all, only Aggadah and the importance of virtue.12 Research on the establishment of the first ulpena – a general girls’ high school with strong emphasis on religious studies and identity founded in October 1932 – also shows that women’s education was given less attention.13 Even though the objective of the ulpena was to educate women committed to both Torah life and Zionism – the antithesis of classic Eastern European Orthodoxy – women were still seen as filling traditional roles. Torah study was an area where innovation was unwanted. Women read Jewish philosophy, basic Jewish law and Mishnah, but not the Talmud. In contrast to the first yeshiva high schools, there was less opposition to secular subjects at the ulpena. And while the first yeshiva high school and the first ulpena were both established at the same time, the yeshiva survived and developed, but the ulpena closed, though lamented by the movement, after one year. It would take seventeen years before another ulpena was established in Kefar Pines. Women in religious Zionist organizations also attempted to break through traditional boundaries, and the accompanying rhetoric even employed motifs presaging a later Orthodox feminism. Yet when it came to education, the position of the ulpena’s founders was far from modernist.

Discussions of women’s Torah study between the late 1950s and the 1980s While the establishment of Israel transformed the discussion of women’s Torah study, there is relative silence between the 1940s and late into the next decade. The 1950s were revolutionary for the young nation of Israel, with education receding before other, more pressing concerns. A national religious educational system resulted from the absorption of the Mizrah.i system into

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

191

state-sponsored education, but changes in women’s religious education were deferred. Rabbis and other leaders associated with this system had values very similar to h.aredi and Eastern European Orthodox, and in their eyes, traditional women’s education was satisfactory. Even though these rabbis disagreed with h.aredi leadership on core issues – above all, Zionism – girls’ religious education was not one of them. Religious Zionist schools were virtually identical to the Beis Yaakov system. What part the study of Oral Torah should play in the life of modern Jewish women was already discussed in the early days of the national religious Zionist educational system. In a short article published in a journal for religious youth, Pnina Shakdiel regrets that boys are required to learn 50 pages of Talmud and girls only 30 chapters of Mishnah. In only one school in Jerusalem did girls study Talmud, and even there, the amount of Talmud study was not enough to sustain religious identity. She argues that given the Mizrah.i’s supportive approach to modernity, a Mizrah.i family could not deprive its daughters from the study of Torah because of tiflut. A Jewish woman, she believes, should be integrated into a system where girls’ talmudic studies could raise them to the level of adjudication.14 On December 15–16, 1963, leading figures in religious education held a conference called the “Religious Education of the Daughter.” In an anthology of revised lectures, Rabbi Elimelekh Bar-Shaul, the rabbi of Reh.ovot and prolific writer in religious theology and education, took both a halachic and an ideological approach to women’s Torah study. He cites an opinion of R. Shakh, who reads Maimonides as allowing a woman to study Torah when she knows she will not turn it into words of folly. Her earnest desire to study already proves she is worthy of it. After citing Ma’ayan Ganim, he concludes with R. Isserles that women are required to learn the basic laws pertaining to daily life. He also follows the H . afez. H . ayyim, noting that women are obligated to learn in the modern period. This is not, however, in-depth study of Oral Torah, but the classic h.aredi understanding of women’s study of these works as a tool enabling their fulfillment of traditional roles. He emphasizes the role of women’s Torah study from two aspects: first, study in order to fulfill a commandment – though not the commandment of Torah study, from which women are exempt – and second, a tool to fulfill her role as mother.15 Beginning in the mid-1960s, similar themes reverberate in Shma’atin, a journal published by the Israeli Ministry of Education targeting teachers of religious subjects. The journal provides a forum to discuss pedagogical issues in teaching Torah as well as halachic concerns relevant to teachers. In a 1964 article on girls’ study of Talmud, Shah.ar Ben-Sarim sees a contradiction between learning commandments women are obligated to perform and the prohibition to study in any depth the casuistry behind them. One cannot study Torah, he argues, without knowing the reasoning, just as the Rosh in the fourteenth century prohibited making rulings according to Maimonides’ Mishna Torah without analysis. Also following the

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

192

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

socio-historical argument of the H . afez.-H . ayyim, Ben-Sarim concludes that the areas legitimately studied by women are subject to change in each generation. The study of Written Torah, he says, necessitates the study of exegesis. Thus there is no essential distinction between Oral Torah and Written Torah. He also suggests that women should be taught only by women for reasons of modesty.16 Responding in a long letter in the next issue of Shma’atin, Jacob Kopel Reiniz., principal of a religious school for girls, rejects the notion that the study of Halacha must be accompanied by the study of the reasons for the adjudication: the position of the Rosh cited in Ben-Sarim’s article refers not to the laity, but only to those who study Torah to become rabbis. He also cites R. Elijah of Vilnius and the Taz on Maimonides’ distinction between Written and Oral Torah. For Reiniz., the H . afez.-H . ayyim only refers to the study of the Hebrew scriptures and the legends of the sages. He rejects BenSarim’s claim that the fields of study permitted to women are subject to change. Reiniz. revisits sources discussed earlier: he cites the opinion in Beit Halevi and then criticizes R. Meir Shz.ranski, who, Reiniz. argues, forces an artificial construction onto the Talmud and its later interpreters by asserting that the prohibition of women studying Torah did not pertain to wise women.17 Responding in turn, Ben-Sarim reaffirms that there is no sense in studying halachic rules without understanding their origin. Since a woman’s study of Torah is a tool enabling her to perform commandments, he says, then her fulfillment of the commandment demands that she study even advanced discussions on the Talmud, such as Sha’agat Arye,18 even though such an intricate interpretive work is hardly tantamount to a simple reading of the text.19 In a letter published in Shma’atin more than eight years after the first exchange, H . ava Frankel-Goldschmidt ridicules allowing religious female students access to all fields except the advanced study of Judaism. It is a disgrace, she says, that religious young women have to enroll in preparatory classes in Talmud at the university because they knew as little as secular students. The result could only be female teachers of Judaism lacking fundamental knowledge of the subject. She does not wish to discuss the basic question of whether women are allowed to study Oral Torah, she writes, but rather only the field of education, since the religious Zionist education system already made its position clear when it introduced the study of Mishnah into the curriculum for girls. Rabbi Nisim allowed the study of Mishnah in ulpanot, she notes, and Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik introduced the study of Talmud in the co-ed school he founded in Boston. She emphasizes that she is not calling for a class on Talmud as an elective like drama or music, but as a required subject as important as mathematics.20 The varied response her letter engendered in the next volume of Shma’atin reveals opposition from the moderate Orthodox community. The first letter was written by Rabbi Shlomo Min-Hahar, the rabbi of Bait-Vagan in Jerusalem

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

193

and one of the leaders of religious Zionism. He admits there is a problem in the education of both boys and girls, but the solution would not come from more Talmud study. He suggests changing the curriculum for boys and girls alike to put more emphasis on texts that would strengthen Jewish identity, such as the Mishnah, Maimonedes’ Mishne Torah, the books of the Maharal, and Kuzari. All of this would be at the expense of the study of Talmud itself. The study of such books, he claims, would be more beneficial in creating a strong religious identity in both boys and girls.21 In a similar response, Moshe Arendt argues that the curriculum in the girls’ schools should focus on teaching religious topics rather than the traditional study of Talmud in yeshivas and should unify the different religious subjects through a religious educational approach, not close readings that focus on detail at the expense of the larger context.22 The last two letters echo more traditional criticism of women’s Torah study as foreign to community practice and identity. The third letter signed by R. Lange, attacks Frankel-Goldschmidt because her proposal would bring to religious schools teachers who were university graduates on the verge of heresy.23 The letter brands Frankel-Goldschmidt’s letters as following a feminist agenda seeking equality for women that would lead them to neglect traditional family duties. The author of the last letter, a woman named Idit Re’im, writes that she accepts that women are forbidden to study Oral Torah, all the while citing halachic sources – which she apparently believes she had no permission to read – forbidding women to study Oral Torah. Women who wish to do so, she claims, are driven by feminism. Her solution is to study more Halacha on a basic level instead of requiring women to study Talmud.24 In a short article published in the 1970s, Rabbi Shimon Vayzer suggests that women’s education should rest on three pillars: studying Jewish philosophy, fostering a commitment for raising families of Torah learners, and supporting Torah institutions.25 In essence, this is a Zionist version of Beis Yaakov. It identifies and strengthens traditional gender roles but agrees to the basic principle of the H . afez. H . ayyim that the changing times require an education system. The exchanges in Shma’atin show that in the early years of the state, women’s education continued to be a thorny topic for moderate Orthodoxy. The texts span a tension within moderate orthodoxy between those who demanded that the changing role of women also impact Torah study and those who defended the old traditions of women’s education. This text adopts the classic h.aredi model of gender roles in a post-war context, where women are educated because of their role as mothers and as sole providers in families where the husband is studying Torah fulltime. Women in religious Zionism, however, have broader access to academic education and vocational training and therefore play a very different economic role. This could only heighten the paradox between their lives in the broader world and their roles in the religious community.

194

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

The founders of religious education in Israel and their views on women’s education In a 1968 article, Rabbi Moses Z.vi Neriya, one of the founders of the yeshiva high school movement, explains that the goal of the ulpena he established at Kefar Pines was to encourage women to remain at home rather than enter the job market. To reduce the need for later academic studies, he supported marriage at a young age. Even if there is a need for such study, it should be at a teachers’ colleges with a strong religious orientation, e.g. Mikhlalah, the Jerusalem College for Women, rather than, say, Bar-Ilan University.26 This was not the first time he addressed this issue. Eight years before when the first ulpena was established in Kefar Pines, there was a curriculum meeting with prominent figures in the moderate Orthodox community attending:27 Neh.ama Leibowitz, Rabbis Moses Z.vi Neriya, Abraham Z.ukerman, Dr. Goldschmidt, and Dr. Judah Moriel. All were involved in the state educational system or teachers’ training. Dov Rapel and Simh.a Friedman, activists from the religious kibbutz movement, were also present. Simh.a Friedman supported the study of Talmud in girls’ schools and argued that past attempts had been successful, an opinion shared by Nah.ama Leibowitz. Drs. Moriel and Goldschmidt objected, since such study would not continue after high school. Rabbi Neriya also opposed it, preferring the study of Halacha.28 In a 1958 lecture at a conference of principals, revised and published eleven years later, Dr Judah Moriel, a leading figure in the state religious education system, discusses the choice not to teach women Talmud. Religious education for girls, he says, is “between a rock and a hard place”: between the Mishnah in Sotah and the danger of tiflut versus the need for Jewish education for girls. In spite of major constraints forced by the term tiflut, the H . afez. H ayyim’s position has led to girls being taught Oral Torah even in the h . . aredi school system. The study of halachic rules in schools has led to more Mishnah study to explore the connection between the adjudication and its source. The study of Mishnah with its interpreters, however, has not been very successful, since it did not accompany the Talmud. Girls should not study talmudic discourse because: We cannot bring girls closer to the fountain of talmudic debates as they flow in their natural and primordial state. The Talmud is a foundation of creation and life, and only someone who can immerse in it completely and drink from its waters can live by them. In simpler terms, in order to take part in the circle of talmudic creation, one needs to study Talmud in the traditional manner.29 Women, he explains, have a different way of thinking: they lean more toward emotional stimulation in a social situation…we presume, therefore, that in girls’ perceptions the emotional aspects are

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

195

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

stronger and this perception, by its nature, is not analytical but general and devoid of context.30 Several female teachers, while not suggesting that women are by nature devoid of certain skills, affirm this stance toward the study of Mishnah.31This kind of argument is based on essentialist claims about women’s nature and cognitive abilities. The differentiation between Talmud and Mishnah is based on the casuistic language of the Mishnah versus the open text of the Talmud which is open for interpretation. Later on articles published in the 1980s begin to look critically at teaching Oral Torah to female students in a religious educational system based heavily on the study of Mishnah, which seems artificial without continued study of Talmud. These authors debate instead the importance of fostering and deepening the study of Jewish philosophy,32 again stating the idea that Jewish philosophy can create a strong Jewish identity and strengthen religious faith. As before, faith is described as more natural for women and the study of the tenets of faith rather than the finer points of ritual as especially relevant to young women. The religious kibbutz movement, considered the torchbearer of moderate Orthodoxy, was of course not silent. With its independent educational system, the movement had significant leeway to put into practice its concepts of education and all the more reason to discuss them. Women began to study Talmud systematically according to an approved curriculum at religious kibbutz institutions, yet even here, there were objections.33 Opinions diverged about women’s natural ability to study Talmud;34 those opposed to women’s study argued that women have an “emotional” nature. Menah.em Bolah, for instance, supported an egalitarian system of education but doubted the effectiveness of teaching girls’ Talmud. Girls, he said, generally lack the unique way of thinking needed to study Talmud and should study Mishnah instead.35 Criticism of co-ed classes in Talmud emerges as early as the 1960s.36 Though it was still in its infancy, egalitarianism in education, as Kula points out, was still a clear goal of the religious kibbutz.37 The majority of the religious kibbutz members discussing the issue in periodical literature and magazines support women’s study of Talmud. One of the leaders of the movement, Z.uriel Admanit, harshly criticizes excluding women from the study of Torah.38 Joseph Ah.ituv claims halachic justification for teaching Talmud to women, which should at least be a voluntary option. Thus women who choose to study should be judged as women who are not commanded but still choose to perform a commandment, which according to Maimonides, is praiseworthy, but less so than those who are obligated to study.39 For these writers, the need for reform in girls’ education as well as support for such reform stems from social change.40 In contrast, Simh.a Friedman, an activist from the religious kibbutz movement, focuses mainly on the halachic aspects and debates the interpretation of the canonical sources. He also

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

196

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

stresses the need for structural reform in light of the changes modernity has brought to women’s education, especially women’s access to all fields of secular education.41 Even though Talmud study was part of the religious educational program in the kibbutz system, one scholar discovered it was not especially popular among female students.42 Even so, between 1985 and 1991, female students who chose the course achieved much better marks than the boys.43 The texts in this section deliver a heavy dose of ontological arguments. Similar to the h.aredi discourse on women’s education, at the center of the texts are perceptions of women’s nature and cognitive abilities. Support for reforming girls’ education arose as a matter of necessity, not from a fundamental shift in values in dialogue with modernity. In fact, the broader fear of feminism is scarcely beneath the surface of such objections and relies heavily on an understanding of the nature of women, which opponents claim is incompatible with the study of Torah. The way women interpret texts and indeed reality itself relies on emotion rather than cold analytical skills, thus preventing them from effectively studying the Talmud. These reasons are not new: almost identical arguments inform Eastern European Orthodox and h.aredi discourse. At this point, moderate Orthodoxy has not undergone any ideological change about women and Torah study. That being said, within moderate Orthodoxy there were activists, like those from the religious kibbutz movement, who were already calling for a re-reading of the canonical text in light of the changing role of women in broader society.

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook and women’s Torah study The legacy of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook still influences the debate on women’s Torah study into the twenty-first century. A prominent leader of religious Zionism and prolific writer, R. Kook became the first chief rabbi of pre-state Israel.44 His philosophical work became a cornerstone in the development of religious Zionism. As decisor, he wrote briefly on women’s Torah study.45 One of his students, Rabbi Joshua Kniel, wanted to teach a course on mikvaot (ritual baths) in an architecture school so that students – among them a woman – would know the basic halachic requirements.46 R. Kook permitted women to participate in the class, arguing that it was part of the halachic knowledge a woman needs. In R. Kook’s comments on the Tur, he understands that in Yoreh De’ah 1,1 the definition of commandments relevant to women is not merely positive commandments that are not time-bound. Since women may choose to perform commandments to which they are not obligated, they theoretically would have to learn the entire Torah. The commandments at issue, he wrote, must be those regularly pertinent to women’s lives. If women do not know them thoroughly, they may fail to fulfill the commandments properly.47

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

197

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

R. Kook supported the improvement of women’s education in pre-state Israel, warning against the lack of interest in the quality of its programs.48 Other members of the Kook circle echo his opinions. In a draft of an article on the status of women, Rabbi David Hacohen noted that women’s Torah study is not problematic because of women’s inferiority, but because of their nature. The study of Torah leads to poverty and seclusion from the physical world, and women’s divinely assigned role is not a life of seclusion but rather of beauty and splendor.49

Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik: the first stages of women’s education in moderate Orthodoxy The story of Talmud study for Orthodox women would be radically different without the trailblazing work of Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik. Even though he did not write extensively on the issue, the schools he founded that taught women Torah on the same level as men revolutionized education in moderate Orthodoxy. His thought, however, was firmly anchored in traditional understandings of gender: “…it manifests an ontic contrast, a dual aspect within the essence of creation…”50 Thus he objected strongly when women asked to participate in rituals tradition had reserved exclusively to men. This metaphysics of gender dominated his writings on women and Jewish law. As a leader of Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary at Yeshiva University in New York City, “The Rav,” as he came to be known in America, ordained close to 2,000 rabbis over the course of almost half a century. Considered the main proponent of Modern Orthodoxy as a synthesis of Torah and Western values, his writings created a theological basis for legitimizing and even necessitating broader involvement with the larger non-Jewish society. As a philosopher and one of the few prominent decisors to arise in the New World, he was seen as the father of Modern Orthodoxy.51 Crucial to women’s Torah study is one of R. Soloveitchik’s most important projects: the establishment of the Maimonides School in Boston, a co-educational school with the same curriculum for both genders. After R. Soloveitchik’s arrival in November 1932, he immediately attempted to introduce more Torah study into Jewish institutions. A year later, he convinced Orthodox supplementary schools to adopt a curriculum that included more traditional Torah study. He advocated a moderating position towards modernity and, compared to other Orthodox leaders, less isolation from American society proved persuasive.52 His first innovation in girls’ education was founding the yeshiva Torat Yisrael, an afternoon school where boys and girls studied together. Except for traditional h.eders, such schools were virtually the only ones providing Jewish education for children attending public schools in the morning. In Torat Yisrael, boys and girls learned Talmud and Mishnah.53 When he later established his Maimonides School, which provided both Jewish and secular education under one roof, co-ed classes studied both secular and religious topics, including Talmud.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

198

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

Talmud study by women became reality in the 1950s, when the Maimonides School opened a ninth grade in 1948 and two years later a tenth. Girls started studying Talmud in high school, both in classes and in independent study periods, where they read the texts jointly with male students.54 By establishing the school and teaching Talmud to female students, R. Soloveitchik began the process that led to Talmud being taught to women in all mainstream Orthodox institutions in America.55 He also played an essential role in the study of Talmud in Stern College for Women of the Yeshiva University. Letters from the early 1950s later came to light revealing more of R. Soloveitchik’s thoughts about girls’ education. The correspondence began after he was approached on January 12, 1953, by one of his students, Rabbi Leonard Rosenfeld, the chairman of the Committee of Education at the Hebrew Institute of Long Island and a director of the yeshiva department in the New York Board of Jewish Education. Rosenfeld had submitted questions about girls’ education: is it allowed or even preferred to teach them Oral Torah? Is there a difference among Talmud, Mishnah, Aggadah, and Halacha? R. Soloveitchik responded in two letters. The first, dated January 23, 1953, explains that he would not answer until he was assured that the New York Board of Jewish Education would adopt his recommendations. In such a controversial issue, he writes, questions of Halacha and tradition are colored by opposing ideological agendas that prevent objective halachic discussion. There are some who wish to liberalize Halacha as if through a majority opinion in a legislative body, while others wish to fossilize Halacha and thus remove it from real life.56 R. Rosenfeld was quick to answer that the board would indeed accept his recommendations, and R. Soloveitchik wrote a second letter some four months later. After apologizing for the late reply due to his heavy workload, he gives short and definitive answers, not addressing the specific questions or grounding them with halachic sources. There should not be a separate institution for boys and girls, he writes, an opinion he had held for many years. Abstaining from teaching religious topics to female students, so common in Orthodox institutions, would lead to the deterioration and downfall of traditional Judaism. Teaching religious topics to girls is thus not only allowed but necessary. He promised to write a responsum in the near future to expand on the different aspects of the question but meanwhile, he declared his support for a curriculum identical for male and female students.57 Unfortunately, if such a responsum was ever written, I have been unable to find it. Even so, R. Soloveitchik’s letters strongly support the study of Oral Torah by women, including Talmud. He acknowledges the contentiousness of the question and undergirds his position with broader policy considerations rather than the canonical exegesis that apparently never came.58 Among R. Soloveitchik’s many students analyzing the man and his writings, there are different explanations – some of them polar opposites – for why R. Soloveitchik opened up so much Jewish textual study to women. Some see it as a practical necessity as so many other rabbis had explained, while others see an essential change in values.59 This may, however, be a false

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

199

dichotomy. In the daily life of moderate Orthodox communities in America, gender equality became part of the cultural background which looked askance at exclusion of women from Jewish education. The return to some nostalgically recalled status quo ante would have been not only destructive, but pointless in an American context. This form of moderate Orthodoxy was not easily exported to Israel. The legacy of R. Soloveitchik was natural to a community surrounded by American notions of gender and an isolated h.aredi society with little influence. Israel, however, was a different story. The national struggle for independence was the primary goal of the moderate Orthodox rabbinate and gender equality was simply not as important. This was reinforced by the strong critical views of h.aredi decisors who were vociferously chastising what they saw as calls for reform from the moderates.

Transitional opinions about women’s education Although R. Soloveitchik’s influence on moderate Orthodoxy gave his opinions on education considerable weight, the majority of texts on women’s Torah study were written in Israel, where moderate Orthodoxy grew slowly but steadily after the establishment of the state. During Israel’s first two decades as a nation, rabbis who identified with moderate Orthodoxy also began to respond to discussions among educators on women’s Torah study. Most saw the Beis Yaakov model as a proper answer for the needs of moderate Orthodox women, with several rabbinic responsa emphasizing the need to limit women’s Torah study to functional study of Torah. They also show the very different context of moderate Orthodoxy in Israel compared to America. Rabbi Hilel Posek Born in Zlatopol in the province of Kiev,60 Rabbi Hilel Posek (1881–1953) was appointed rabbi of his hometown and after the Russian revolution moved to Tatarbunar in Bessarabia (present day Romania).61 He published a number of books and edited several halachic journals, among them Haposek, a monthly he published after moving to pre-state Israel during Passover of 1935. He was not, however, considered a prominent decisor.62 In an article Posek originally published in his journal, a yeshiva student called Abraham Kahana had asked him to explain the boundaries of the prohibition of women to study Torah, which led many h.aredi families to refrain from giving their daughters a religious education. Posek argues through numerous examples that an illustrious line of women who had studied Torah grace Jewish history. He also cites from the responsa Beit David63 supporting girls’ education. Women in this generation, he says, have succumbed to immodesty and must be educated in the ways of Judaism so they may resist the currents of change. In Posek’s argument, social realities may dictate that women learn, but learn what exactly, he does not write. Though apparently adopting the standard h.aredi discourse, he presents hardly any

200

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

halachic material, a characteristic of many of his journal articles voicing his opinion on public issues.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Rabbi Ben-Z.ion Firer An article by Rabbi Ben-Z.ion Firer (1914–88) is perhaps the first comprehensive halachic treatment of women’s Torah study written in Israel. Born in Galicia to a prominent rabbinic family, before the Second World War he was the rabbi of Rymanów, where he also headed a yeshiva and edited the halachic journal Talpiyot. After surviving the Holocaust, he immigrated to Israel, and in 1957 became the rabbi of Bat Galim. He also taught at the first Hesder Yesihva, Kerem Beyavne, and was a member of the rabbinical council of the Mizrah.i. A prolific writer and author of 33 books,64 his article was published in Noam, a journal dedicated to halachic questions about modern life, especially from a legal, technological, or ethical standpoint. While the journal was not self-identified as religious Zionist, contributors discussed current social issues – among them women’s Torah study. Though citing few halachic sources, R. Firer’s article focuses on the adjudications of Maimonides, the Shulh.an Arukh, R. Isserles, and the Taz concerning learning about commandments women are obligated to perform and also the elementary study of the Written Torah. Firer sees a contradiction between R. Isserles and the Shulh.an Arukh: R. Isserless understands the talmudic text on women’s participation in the ceremony of Hakhel to mean that women need to learn about the commandments to which they are obliged, while Maimonides and the Shulh.an Arukh see the issue hinging on the difference between Written and Oral Torah. From a text-critical perspective, the contradiction has little basis, since it is unclear whether either R. Isserles or the Shulh.an Arukh based their opinions on the talmudic text referring to Hakhel. Be that as it may, Firer puts the most emphasis on Maimonides’ opinion that although a woman is forbidden to study the Written Torah, she still is rewarded for doing so. For R. Firer, Maimonides is referring only to the study of laws pertaining to women or the elementary study of the Written Torah. He suggests, however, that Maimonides includes the study of Oral Torah so that a woman would receive merit but less than a man commanded to study. Although Firer reduces the prohibition of women to study Torah to a minor issue, teaching both Written and Oral Torah in religious girls’ schools still relies on a twofold rationale following the h.aredi norm.65 (1) Torah study must replace the study of heresy, and (2) since the majority of educators in these schools are women, an educational system must produce women knowledgeable enough to teach. Rabbi Nathan Z.vi Friedman The 1950s and 1960s saw several publications about women’s religious education, some specifically about the study of Talmud, but officiating rabbis only

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

201

authored a handful of them. In the same fashion, educators, even those with wide halachic knowledge, did not offer their opinion in a rabbinical capacity. Rabbi Nathan Z.vi Friedman, however, was the rabbi of a large neighborhood in Bnei Brak, a delegate to the Twenty-second Zionist Conference, and a member of both the education board of the Chief Rabbinate and the rabbinical council of Hapoel Hamizrah.i.66 Informed by Friedman’s own Hungarian tradition,67 his 1965 article in Shma’atin reflects the Israeli state religious educational system’s views of women’s study of Oral Torah. It too deviates little from the h.aredi norm. R. Friedman makes the standard distinction between practical study to fulfill a commandment and study of Torah for its own sake. Women are commanded to study for practical reasons, thus they say the benedictions over Torah study. He revisits the ruling of R. Nathanson in Shoel U’meshiv that women are forbidden to perform ritual slaughter in modern times. Sacrifice ceased after the destruction of the Temple, so women are not allowed to study these laws and hence they are prohibited from slaughtering for regular consumption of meat. The real answer should be the very opposite, Friedman counters, since ritual slaughter in modern times is more relevant to women’s lives than sacrifices in the Temple long destroyed. An alternative rationale for women’s exemption from Torah study is similar to their exemption from time-bound commandments. Allowing women to focus on traditional family roles exempts them from time-bound commandments. In the same fashion, Torah study is an intensely time-consuming activity, thus they are also exempt from Torah study. Study to enable women to perform commandments, however, is not part of the exemption, thus the abundance of scholarly women in Jewish history. In fact, women may study most of the Oral Torah discussing commandments relevant to women, he concludes, and this study should be performed in a comprehensive, in-depth manner, yet not in a way that would infringe on women’s domestic responsibilities.68 Discussions in the public arena of moderate Orthodoxy from the 1950s and 1960s were instrumental in shaping religious Zionist education. Though not written by rabbis with influence on the educational system, articles and letters engendered by this discussion are part of a public consensus taking shape simultaneously in articles written by educators and teachers. In these two decades, the yeshiva high school and the ulpena models emerged, while new ideas began to shape the religious Zionist educational policy and its attitude towards modernity, including women’s education.

The Woman and Her Education: the next generation of religious Zionist Rabbis The next phase of discourse in moderate Orthodox circles in Israel was influenced by the writings of R. Soloveitchik. Rabbis Judah Amital and

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

202

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

Aaron Lichtenstein, the heads of the yeshiva in Gush Etzyon, became prominent voices of the moderate Orthodox message in Israel. Married to R. Soloveitchik’s daughter, R. Lichtenstein was instrumental in importing his fatherin-law’s ideology into Israeli religious Zionist discourse. An anthology published in 1980 called The Woman and Her Education includes articles from key rabbinic leaders in moderate Orthodoxy – among them were Rabbis Amital and Lichtenstein. While not decisors, their influence rests in their acclaimed talmudic scholarship. Their contributions are thus more theoretical than practical. Born in Hungary in 1924, R. Amital was a Holocaust survivor who established the Hester Yeshiva in Gush Ez.yon and later founded the left wing religious movement Meimad. He also served as minister on Meimad’s behalf in the Israeli government when it became a political party. His publications appear in different religious journals and books, many of them transcriptions by others of public talks and lessons.69 R. Amital contribution on the role of women in modern society is a lecture transcribed by the editor of the anthology, Ben-Z.ion Rosenfeld, under the title “Primary Problems in the Education of the Woman.” Problems resulting from women’s changing roles, Amital points out, were not unique to Jewish society. The solution is to expect nothing less than complete inclusion in all fields of life. This integration will not always succeed, since a fundamental physiological and emotional difference remains between men and women, which in his mind, implies no male supremacy or dominance. In principle women are exempt from Torah study. Since women today do study Torah, this study, while it need not include casuistry, still should be in-depth because superficial study will lead to disrespect for the sacred text. He objects to study for women that aims toward halachic adjudication, but otherwise the depth of study depends on the teacher, the specific situation, and the student. Women should not strive to become the head of a yeshiva, he emphasizes, and there should be no competition between men and women when it comes to Torah study. The main outcome of Torah study by women should be respect for Torah scholars and an understanding of the importance of Halacha in daily life. R. Amital has changed an emphasis: the goal of Torah study should not be examining Halacha and all its details, but to instill in female students the understanding that Halacha has a vital place in their daily lives and that seeking the advice of Torah scholars should be routine.70 His discussion was not conducted on the halachic level, but rooted in an ideological context. Unlike other texts where the meta-halachic level was hidden, here it is sharply at the center. R. Lichtenstein tries to resolve the tension between women’s role in modern society and their religious roles using a different tone. A Harvard PhD in English literature, he is a prolific writer in philosophy, mainly publishing in religious journals. His writings on the Talmud are currently being printed by his students.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

203

Also transcribed and edited by Ben-Z.ion Rosenfeld, the article is based on fundamental ideas about women’s roles in Judaism. R. Lichtenstein accepts as fact the existence of innate differences between the genders, although such differences do not imply dominance of one over the other. In some cases, women have the advantage, as in the special bond between mother and child. When Halacha sets a limit on women’s participation, it is sometimes possible to circumvent it with existing halachic tools. These instances, though justified, should be managed with care, since the fundamental difference between men and women should always be acknowledged. The main problem, R. Lichtenstein feels, is how those skills for which women have a natural inclination are considered demeaning, for example child-rearing. Yes, women are exempt from Torah study, but in view of H . afez.-H . ayyim, women should not be exempt from studying the Oral Torah: indispensable when the goal is to grow strong Jewish women who can face modernity critically. R. Lichtenstein accepts the ruling of Beit Halevi that the purpose of women’s Torah study is to allow them a full performance and understanding of the commandments. Yet R. Lichtenstein sees a need for broader practical religious education than currently available. The integration of Oral Torah into women’s education is also essential to create an emotional bond between female students and tradition, especially because of their important role in educating future generations. He also includes in Oral Torah the study of Torah with Rashi’s interpretations and Mishnah, and does not oppose the study of Talmud. Practically speaking, he says, there is a problem with teaching Talmud to girls because of a lack of motivation and tradition, especially since the study of Talmud is initially painstaking and mainly motivated by the hope to delve more deeply into later stages of study.71 The anthology includes a responsum more traditionally framed in halachic language by Rabbi Abraham Kahana Shapira, the head of Merkaz Harav Yeshiva, a decisor, and the Israeli chief rabbi.72 Despite employing the standard h.aredi discourse about the essential nature of women, to allow for the different role women play in modern society and in his own community he emphasizes that there is an exception for women with proven abilities who may be given greater access to rabbinic literature. There are parts of the Oral Torah not suitable for women’s study and their study would have negative ramifications. Women should thus be taught the Written Torah and its interpretations, Mishnah, and basic Halacha. The primary rule is that any material that strengthens women’s religious identity and practical knowledge in religious daily life should be part of the curriculum. Women have a different nature and way of thinking than men. As a result, he says, women should not study in an in-depth manner (iyun). Maimonides’ objection to women’s studies, he explains, is that women will misunderstand casuistry. R. Shapira makes a novel point: even though women have natural inclinations and abilities different from men, among themselves, women have different levels of intellectual ability. Thus the areas and levels of learning would vary for different women. Study by a woman on her own accord

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

204

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

testifies to aptitude and dedication, which means a woman will not turn the words of Torah to words of folly. Unlike other articles with a more theoretical focus, R. Shapira bases his position on halachic sources. The exemption from Torah study pertains both to the father’s duty to teach his daughter and the woman’s duty to teach herself. The prohibition is rabbinical in nature. First, the prohibition refers to the study of Oral Torah, not written. The Taz states that women are allowed to study the simple meaning of the Written Torah, just as the Talmud interprets women’s participation in the Hakhel ceremony, in which women come to hear the reading of the Torah. R. Elijah of Vilnius said that women may study Written Torah, which for R. Shapira means that while learning topics with no practical applications could be called study, learning Torah with such application in mind falls under the definition of hearing. R. Shapira interprets the Maharil, who encouraged women learning from their mothers without casuistry, as prohibiting teaching very young girls rather than a woman teaching herself or an adult woman with intellectual ability to learn from others. He defines the study of the Mishnah as non-casuistic learning even when accompanied by the interpretation of R. Obadiah of Bertinoro. Women should also study Jewish philosophy.73 Compared to the generation of rabbis before them, these three rabbis take a slightly different stance toward women’s role in modern society. Though they operate under the primary assumption of a feminine nature uniquely different from the male – an assumption, explicit or implicit, among all the decisors discussed before – the interpretation of this idea changes. The hermeneutical process in these texts gives a different content to women’s nature: it focuses on the uniqueness of the female sphere, careful to defend it against any notion of inferiority.

Minimizing the prohibition: Rabbis Goren and Henkin The discourse of the 1980s introduces a new element: how can a community reconcile the tension between a woman’s expanded role in society and her absence from the most central part of Jewish life, Torah study? For feminist Orthodox groups with roots in America, this question became acute. They rejected the reasoning underlying most rabbinical discourse as mere apologetics and demanded a more comprehensive policy change from the moderate Orthodox rabbinate. Rabbi Shlomo Goren was the chief rabbi of the Israeli military, the chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, and the chief rabbi of Israel, and as such, also the head of the State Rabbinical Court. His career as a decisor having begun at a relatively young age, he was involved in seminal efforts to address the challenges of creating a modern Jewish state that could operate within halachic boundaries.74 A ruling about women studying Torah was published posthumously in the journal Th.umin. Comprising three answers given at different times, the

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

205

editor grouped them together in a logical rather than chronological order, since together they present a coherent position on women’s Torah study. The first and the second parts were written on September 8, 1993, the third on February 6, 1975.75 R. Goren interprets Maimonides and the Shulh.an Arukh differently than most decisors before him. He sees an inherent contradiction between the first part of Maimonides – forbidding women to study Torah – and the second, where a woman who studies anyway gains a reward. From this contradiction, R. Goren infers that there is no Torah or rabbinic prohibition of women’s Torah study: it is merely “good advice.” In modern times, he explains, women can have an education equal to men: women who would turn the words of Torah to words of folly simply no longer exist. Concerning the curriculum, he answers that above all, women should study Halacha pertaining to their daily lives: be that as it may, even if you reduce it to a minimum and only teach the girls the commandments relevant to women … you will not be able to teach them everything that you have to teach them without violating a rabbinical warning on this issue.76 In the third part of his response, he suggests that a female student should not be obligated to study Oral Torah if she has no interest. Though already suggested in the opinion of Rabbi Judah Asad and a few others of little halachic influence, R. Goren’s reading of Maimonides is not a popular interpretation. This testifies to R. Goren’s independence, but also to the large gap between the Shulh.an Arukh and the social needs of moderate Orthodox society. Goren constructs such an unusual rationale because he is aware of the effects of prohibiting women’s Torah study in a modern society. At the same time, he takes a moral stance on gender equality: the male and female spheres are of equal worth and dignity. Rabbi Judah Hertzl Henkin, the grandson of Rabbi Elijah Henkin, a prominent decisor in the US in the 1950s and 1960s, also minimizes the prohibition. Born in New York, Rabbi Y. Henkin received most of his halachic education from his grandfather. In the late 1970s Henkin was a rabbi in Israel in the area of Beit-She’an77 and one of the founders of Nishmat, the women’s Torah study program in Jerusalem. His responsum on women’s Torah study is part of a larger halachic collection on the status of women, especially in the last two of his four-volume responsa collection. R. Henkin’s responsum is essentially conservative, well within the boundaries of Orthodox discourse set down by previous decisors. Yet he also reflects on the process of writing a responsum on this issue, that is, his rhetorical strategy is to make that strategy explicit. The result is a basic vision of gender relations in a religious society in the modern world. His letter concerning women’s Torah study was written on October 22, 1991, and first published in the American journal Hadarom and later without revision in his book.78

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

206

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

A female student in a Torah study program had concerns about the legitimacy of women studying Torah. R. Henkin declared that this was a time when in spite of accepted halachic interpretation, there is a need for unusual rabbinic action: older halachic interpretations are difficult to follow in a new social context. He explains the opinions of the H . afez. H . ayyim and R. Soroz.kin, but at the same time says that halachic reasoning must find a way to the current reality of women’s Torah study without using halachic models like Migdar Milta, (ad hoc legislation).79 He finds the solution in the words of Maimonides. In Henkin’s reading, the prohibition does not refer to women studying by themselves or with other women, but rather to a man teaching a woman. A woman who comes to a man’s class, however, should not be turned away. He also sees in Maimonides only a father and his daughter, and cites the author of Ma’ayan Ganim that the prohibition only refers to a woman when she is very young. Otherwise, there could be no scholarly women in Jewish history. He also suggests that Maimonides sees this issue not as a prohibition, but rather as good advice, paralleling R. Goren. Adult women not under the care of their parents and learning for the sake of heaven, he concludes, are worthy to be taught and may even be taught Talmud. Clearly, it is better to teach them so they will not go to a secular institution in a generation that requires it. Many women have extensive academic education and without learning Torah they will fall to the temptations of secularism. R. Henkin’s reasons are very similar to those who came before him: they bear no trace of modern values. However, this text should be examined in light of many other responsa dealing with women’s rights in the tension between modernity and Judaism. R. Henkin adopts an array of modern values, but he chooses to use the vocabulary of classical halachic discourse. His underlying assumptions are “modern” despite the ancient language of halachic discourse. He makes clear, however, that his interpretations are at odds with tradition and that his rulings are to be understood in light of contemporary social conditions. R. Henkin also addressed the question from an ideological perspective. In a lecture at a conference held by the Orthodox feminist organization Kolekh (your voice) in 1999, he discussed the relationship between feminism and Torah study. He mentioned in his responsum that a woman may study Torah, and that he sees no halachic obstacle. Thus there is no reason to exclude the possibility that a woman could study Torah in such depth and breadth that she could become a decisor. There is no reason to fear a woman decisor, he says, since she would not change canonical sources that allow no room to reinterpret. He said that women’s Torah study should be of a kind that steers away from what he called “venomous feminism,” which would poison the spiritual heritage of Judaism and criticize the halachic establishment. Torah study without feminist tendencies, he suggests, would enable a constructive dialogue between God-fearing, scholarly women and rabbis.80 A woman could thus become an equal member in the halachic realm if she would be controlled by the same constraints as any member of the elite group

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

207

of scholars of Torah and Halacha, the gatekeeper function remaining intact. Her entrance into this elite group would be determined by her motives. Feminism is a cause for disqualification, but a woman faithful to the traditional tenets of Judaism would be eligible to join the halachic elite.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

A changing point: the tension between Torah study and feminism A basic consensus on women’s Torah study begins to emerge in moderate Orthodox discourse. Some texts were written by rabbis and published in religious publications, and the authors use different terminology, mentioning feminism and questions of modernity and Judaism. Though they boast of no particular halachic innovation, the importance of these texts lies in how they reflect the tension between women’s Torah study and a critical approach to modernity. Understanding that women’s status had changed in modern society and in turn also influenced religious life, the authors reinterpret canonical texts in a way that smooths the friction between the texts and modern life.81 Sometimes the criticism took a satiric form, for example in a satire published by Rabbi Abraham Vaserman, a teacher in the Hesder Yeshiva in Ramat-Gan, about a woman studying Torah. In Agnon-like language, the story tells the story of a girl adamant about studying Torah: …and she found a rich donor who bought her a big house and she turned it into a Beit Midrash for clever girls. Immediately the rumor spread of the yeshiva for girls, and girls came to it from all different places … Since the world learned of this yeshiva, learned men came and hid beneath the window and heard the question she used to ask the girls. Afterwards they returned to the Beit Midrash and debated which question was the hardest and about the quality of the answers the female students gave. Because some of the learned men liked the answers of certain female students, several marriage proposals came about … But many clever girls saw all boys as worthless and did not agree to the matches, and they grew older and their parents anguished in sorrow.82 So much for Torah study transforming women into seductresses of little virtue. The moderate Orthodoxy that rebelled against traditional Orthodox leadership in Eastern Europe did not engage extensively with women’s rights. In pre-state religious Zionist political organizations, the development of the debate about women’s issues was also not a speedy one.83 The conversation about women’s character and natural ability continued both among rabbinic figures and educators, while the religious establishment, even the non-rabbinic one, remained within a h.aredi frame of reference when talking about women and Torah.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

208

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

In the 1980s, however, there is a change among rabbis acutely aware of the tension between tradition and a modern world that gives women considerable freedom in the public sphere – in the Orthodox universe, an exclusively masculine domain. They also accept the basic premise of a difference both in female nature and epistemology, but they choose not to portray this difference as inferior. Though tolerant of women studying Torah, they express concern for study that will lead women to wander beyond the boundaries of Orthodoxy and rebel against rabbinic authority. To a certain degree, the rabbis internalize changes in values in the general culture but are wary of potential results of this change. Very soon, moderate Orthodox discourse reaches a turning point in women’s Torah study. By the 1990s, there had been a steady growth in the number of institutions offering women Torah study that included Talmud, which is described as a significant change in women’s consciousness of their role in religious life.84 At these institutions a feminist Orthodox discourse takes form85 which sees new justifications for changes in women religious roles couched in halachic language, though with hermeneutic innovation. Criticism of the rabbinic establishment and of halachic interpretation that disregards modern values of equality of women is a frequent motif in feminist discourse. The debate among Orthodox feminists led simultaneously to a counterresponse from those who identified this trend a dangerous deviation. Even there, however, the form of discourse changed.

The ideological halachic discussion beginning in the 1990s The wealth of texts published from the mid-1990s reveals a new current spanning two poles. At one end, feminist authors of both genders value the study of Torah by women and thus strive to craft a halachic model to justify it, not merely retroactively, but from the onset. Committed to a modern worldview with many liberal characteristics, they wish to accommodate modern values even at the cost of radical interpretations of canonical texts. The other pole wishes to minimize Torah study by women for equally ideological reasons. Since Torah study by women became associated with a liberal and feminist worldview,86 more conservative authors criticize it along with modernism in general. In an anthology of articles about the religious education of young women called Shirat Alamot (The Songs of Maidens), one section deals with women’s Torah study. In one article, Rabbi Elisha Aviner, who teaches in a Hesder Yeshiva in Ma’ale Adumim, discusses the differences between Torah study for both genders87 as well as the source of their different levels of obligation. First he offers the standard explanation that women’s traditional domestic role makes studying Torah difficult, thus they are exempt from Torah study. From R. Kook, Aviner deduces that the study of Torah is necessary for men’s spiritual equilibrium, but not for women. He bases this assertion on a passage

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

209

by Kook that Torah can bring great advantages, but at the same time can also lead to unforeseeable and irreversible damage. R. Kook explains that this tension arises from the distinction between men and women. The male aspect is to advance the world with scientific development, while women promote individual growth, which is not dependent on books. Women will achieve self-fulfillment and happiness only within their natural roles. Rather than halachic, the article by Rabbi Jacob Ariel, the rabbi of RamatGan and a prominent religious Zionist decisor, is ideological.88 He sees no problem with women studying Talmud, and he thinks most women who study Torah do so from serious religious motivation.89 Yet he also identifies women who are motivated to learn for the wrong – and feminist – reasons. He criticizes a book without specifying its name – from the description in the article, he is likely referring to an anthology called Jewish Legal Writings by Women90 – where he sees in some of the articles a disrespectful attitude towards rabbis and criticism of those considered too conservative. He also notes that some of the articles argued from history alongside articles that were halachic in nature. He takes offense that some of the authors, though married, do not cover their hair. The feminine study that he supports is not a replica of male study, but will support women’s unique nature.91 He warns again of the danger of infiltration by “militant feminism” into the feminine Beit Midrash. R. Ariel does not invalidate the legitimacy of women as talmudic scholars who could also adjudicate halachic matters, but demands that the study of Torah by women not be a product of a feminist agenda.92 He mentions the differences among various feminist schools of thought, and he apparently has some basic knowledge of cultural feminism, which would mesh more easily with the Orthodox understanding of gender. It is instructive to compare Ariel’s article with a lecture delivered a few years before by Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, one of the leading rabbinical figures in moderate Orthodoxy starting in the second half of the 1990s, at the first conference of Kolekh (The Israeli Orthodox Feminist Organization) in 1999. The transcript of his lecture, published in a volume with others from the conference, accurately reflects the original, including discussion with the audience.93 It is significant for R. Cherlow why women choose to study Torah, and he worries that not all women who study do so for the sake of Torah. While not specifying what the proper motives are, one assumes he has similar concerns as R. Ariel about women who study to criticize the religious establishment. He fears this trend will adversely affect the traditional family. Concerning the curriculum, R. Cherlow says that women should not only study Talmud. Since women’s Beis Midrash does not have a tradition of study, women are not constrained by the traditional ways of men’s yeshivas, which are not necessarily of interest to all who study in a yeshiva, that is, a masculine environment. A feminine Beit Midrash would enable study in a freer manner, overcoming the obstacles of the traditional male yeshiva reluctant to introduce new methods because of accepted traditions.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

210

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

Changes in the legitimacy of women’s Torah study, even advanced Talmud study, are acknowledged by other authors, but they are wary of the link between Torah study and feminism. There are concerns that a liberal, feminist motivation underlies the desire to change women’s roles in religious life. In these cases, however, the debate about the connection between women’s Torah study and modern values is much more coherent. The authors in this anthology participate in a society where the values of modernity are neither vague nor seen as external dangers to Orthodoxy: they are part of the internal discourse. What is new in R. Ariel is primarily the author’s knowledge of feminism and modern values, such that the meta-halachic discussion rises to the surface, discussing the relevance of “women’s voice” and their unique epistemology.

Women’s Torah study as culture war Meta-halachic discourse and the influence of modern thought in the moderate Orthodox camp led to backlash from more conservative elements. Conservative rabbis objected to what they saw as the infiltration of liberal values into halachic discourse. The danger was a scarcely disguised modern feminism seeking to obliterate gender distinctions, which they felt duty-bound to expose and condemn. Killed in a terrorist attack in 2006, Rabbi Eli Horowitz was a rabbi in a Hebron yeshiva. He saw himself as a student of Rabbi Z.vi Tau, one of the leaders of the Har-Hamor Yeshiva, and was part of a group that formulated a coherent worldview that emerged during the establishment of the yeshiva. Rosen-Tzvi94 has identified its cosmic elements: the yeshiva saw itself as the representation of the nation, or in their terms, the heart of the nation. A response of the Har-Hamor circle to any public issue then circulates to other parts of the body. This self-understanding engenders texts seeking to characterize sociological and political processes according to R. Kook’s teachings. The result is a “correct” response that will surge from the heart to the other parts of the body. This characterization also applies to a broad critique of feminism published in a book including several lessons given by R. Horowitz. The article directly confronts feminist texts and attempts to identify the dangerous roots of the movement. Horowitz critiques an article published in the journal of the religious kibbutz movement. He does not mention the name of the author of the article, but deals directly with what she wrote.95 R. Horowitz sees two contradictory trends in religious feminism: one that blurs differences between men and women not explicitly prohibited by Halacha, in women’s prayer groups for example, while the other emphasizes the uniquely feminine, such as in writing contemporary Midrash.96 R. Horowitz juxtaposes these trends with Kook’s notions of gender, especially R. Kook’s stance in the polemics over women’s suffrage.97 R. Horowitz asserts that in light of R. Kook’s opinion, the feminist’s demand is completely justifiable

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

211

when it comes to women’s roles among the nations of the world. These demands are not relevant to the Jewish nation, however, because the feminist movement emerged in a European culture with a different set of values.98 An underlying premise in R. Horowitz’s reading of Kook centers on selffulfillment. Horowitz sees self-fulfillment in the Western sense as based on a lie, because human purpose arises directly from its true nature, in his words, “freedom is to be faithful to one’s self, [i.e] the divine soul.”99 Self-fulfillment is found only in the Torah, though most reject that premise, primarily due to the influence of post-modernism and the rise of individualism. He compares the post-modern world to the Tower of Babel. The verse “we shall make ourselves a name” (Gen. 11:4) identifies the will to create a name, that is, to decide existentially for oneself the goal and purpose of life, since otherwise there is none. This is the heart of a post-modernism that denies the need to seek purpose. This is also the source for a contemporary discourse, Horowitz maintains, that wishes to minimize women’s role in the family, negating her natural purpose.100 Perfection is achieved by fulfilling natural roles, and if both genders do not fulfill their roles, the failure will be a joint one. To bolster his argument, he lists numerous examples where feminine nature saved the day in Jewish history.101 Torah study is not geared towards acquiring knowledge to enable religious praxis, but to allow a deep connection between the Torah and the soul and give expression to the divine goodness inherent in humankind. Both men and women need this connection, but each takes different paths to achieve it. A woman, he explains, does not need Torah study to connect to internal truth: her mind is enlightened even without the intellect.102 Since the feminine psyche is dominated by emotion, intellectual study does not have the same influence. A woman’s purpose is to manage her home, and her merits result not only from encouraging her husband and sons to study, but also by being herself the inspiration to learn. R. Horowitz’s analysis is not halachic but ideological. He identifies motivation for study, not in textual interpretation, but as part of a larger discourse on the place of modern values in religious society. Although his conclusions are phrased in a uniquely dense style with many references to R. Kook’s writings, the content is quite similar to h.aredi discourse. Where there is opposition to change in women’s education and indeed to changes in women’s role in general, such change always evokes fear as a modern assault on the old value system. There is, however, perhaps an element of innovation through the addition of global context. The frequent use of R. Kook’s writings quickly moves the question of the role of the Jewish family into a much larger context than h.aredi discussions.

A post-modernist view of women’s Torah study Until his death in 2007, Rabbi Shimon Gershon Rosenberg (later known as Rabbi Shagar) was the head of several yeshivas. Author of several books, he

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

212

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

wished to mediate between halachic life and post-modern insights, combining in his own approach post-modern philosophy with an innovative interpretation of classic halachic texts.103 Shagar’s writings attempt to identify in postmodernism a rejuvenating element in religious life that stimulates creativity and innovation. R. Shagar’s perception of post-modernism is not nihilistic. As Shagar put it, he differentiates between “soft” and “hard” post-modernism: the latter being nihilistic while the former leaves existing social structures intact and allows for their growth. The nihilism of post-modernism is restrained by legitimizing mystical experiences that anchors religious texts as superior to limited human understanding. The significance of R. Shagar’s ideas lies in the claim that post-modernism allows constant renewal, a motif often motivating support for women’s Torah study.104 In two articles, R. Shagar looks at women’s Torah study from two different perspectives.105 Discussing Maimonides, Shagar first acknowledges the mainstream opinion of Halacha as the responsum of Beit Halevi distinguishing between Torah study with a purely functional goal and study for its own sake. According to R. Shagar, Maimonides’ approach is more complex. In his Laws of Torah Study 1, 2, Maimonides writes that there is a duty for someone whose father has not taught him Torah to study by himself, because learning brings action, but action does not bring learning. From Maimonides’ two phrases, R. Shagar infers two different approaches to Torah study. The first is a duty of father to son, which leads to religious praxis through learning. The second is a personal duty of Torah study. The first aspect is the initial step and one cannot advance without it, but the second one is the destination and purpose.106 R. Shagar feels that the distinctions in Beit Halevi are relevant to all. To clarify this point, he uses a methodology prevalent among researchers of Maimonides’ philosophy. In the first part of the Guide to the Perplexed, Maimonides wrote extensively on the definitions of terms in the Written Torah, so they should not be understood in their profane sense when these terms refer to the Creator. When they refer to God, they only represent a certain aspect of God’s influence on the world rather than refer to God’s essence. Scholars of Maimonides’ philosophy employ a similar technique when they wish to examine carefully terms used by Maimonides himself, as R. Shagar when he looks at the terms “Oral Torah” and “Talmud” used by Maimonides in his Laws of Torah Study (Hilkhot Talmud Torah). The distinction between these terms, he adds, was first suggested in the work of Yosef Faur.107 With the help of other references to Maimonides, Shagar defines “Talmud” as study by analogy and deduction. This study is the final purpose of Torah study, and it allows someone to know the ways of the Creator. “Oral Torah,” on the other hand, is an action aimed to perfect soul and body, which includes improving society as a whole, not merely individual spirituality.108 Shagar reasons that the father is obliged to teach his son and this obligation is a social one. Learning Torah is not only a technical means to a end, however, but transcends it, since without study there would be no orderly

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

213

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

society, a prerequisite for the spiritual aspirations of inheriting the world to come.109 He draws two major conclusions: The Oral Torah in Maimonides is not merely the proper politeia [proper organization of society]. It is the wisdom of God itself that resides in reality, shapes it, and seeks to bring it to perfection…In this context, the Halacha and its existence take a much more essential role than some scholars tend to show. According to Maimonides the study of the Oral Torah is the prerequisite to the study of the wisdom Ma’ase Merkava [a term for metaphysics in the writings of Maimonides] itself. The relationship between them is strong, not only that of means to an end but also of form and matter, of a field that only within it can develop understanding of godliness.110 The study of the Talmud is not a tool but a goal, meaning that the act of studying the Talmud uncovers the inherently divine logic that shapes the Torah itself. Thus when Maimonides writes in several places that studying his Mishne Torah will render the study of Talmud superfluous, he did not mean study in general, but study in order to know the Halacha. Study to which R. Shagar refers as philosophical is not expendable, however, since it is the way to reveal God in reality, and the idea of giving that up is unthinkable.111 Having constructed this teleological framework R. Shagar will now explain Maimonides’ position on women’s Torah study. The Mishne Torah deserves an in-depth discussion, since its sources are not clear and the picture it paints is not immediately coherent. This Halacha contains four distinct statements: 1. A woman is not commanded to study Torah. 2. If she learns, her reward is less. 3. The sages commanded that a man shall not teach his daughter Torah, since most women do not mean to study and will turn the words of the Torah to words of folly. 4. Written Torah should not be taught. However, if he still teaches his daughter, the teaching should not be considered folly. The discussion here, R. Shagar points out, is about Written and Oral Torah, not about Talmud. He focuses on Maimonides’ ruling that a woman who learns is rewarded as someone who is not commanded but does anyway. Maimonides’ source is in the talmudic discussion in tractates Kidushin and Baba-Kama, but in Maimonides’ Laws of Repentance, it is said that a person should learn Torah even if he has ulterior motives, because he will eventually turn to loving Torah for its own sake. Thus women and children should be also taught and even unlearned people, because after they perform the commandments out of fear, learning more, they will fulfill them out of love.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

214

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

Shagar concludes that the woman who is not commanded to study Torah is still expected to fulfill the ideal of worshiping God out of love, which in its upmost expression is the Talmud itself.112 That the woman is rewarded testifies that her study is of value, but if so, why isn’t there an identical obligation? Study in the first phase, he answers, has a social function and from that women are exempt. He does not detail why these social implications exempt women from study. Later on, however, he notes that the difference in reward is not a miscarriage of justice. Maimonides’ fear that women would turn the words of Torah to folly might be the result of his esoteric writing. Maimonides’ constant fear of an ill effect on the masses that leaves them unable to deal with philosophical complexity is also present here, since women in the age in which Maimonides lived were similar to the women described by Rabbi Eli’ezer in the Mishnah.113 The objection is only to the study of Torah as a social norm, however, not on a case by case basis. One of the questions Maimonides’ interpreters invariably ask is why he differentiates between Written and Oral Torah but still makes a concession for its transmission to women. There were several opinions about the source of Maimonides’ distinction and none of these readings is fully convincing. R. Shagar presents a different reading based on the general Halacha that a woman who wants to perform a commandment from which she is exempt may still do so. He explains initial objections to the study of the Written Torah as a desire that Torah study by women should not become a compulsory norm.114 R. Shagar asserts that Maimonides saw women as objects of discrimination in the public sphere and allowed them to breach this barrier on an individual basis. Beyond that, this barrier relates only to the social stage of Torah study, not to study leading to the love of God. He sees in Maimonides’ ruling a clear resolution in favor of full equality of women in Talmud study as Maimonides defines it. Moreover, the inequality in the initial phases of Torah study is not divorced from historical context. Therefore, a different halachic position is justifiable in a world where epistemological perceptions have completely changed, and that there is a different feminine way of studying which is not a reflection on its quality.115 According to Maimonides, the wise man leads by prophecy and devotion. Women can attain the same state, Shagar explains, but Maimonides’ perception of wisdom is masculine and does not acknowledge feminine intelligence.116 Shagar develops this idea extensively in a second article written several years later on the character of the feminine voice in Torah study. This article suggests extensive knowledge of feminist literature and uses feminist models to identify the feminine voice in the yeshiva context. Cultural feminism,117 sometimes referred to as “relational” or “essentialist” feminism, identifies a uniquely feminine nature, a concept constantly criticized, however, as justifying a feminine character which a patriarchal establishment has forced upon women. R. Shagar acknowledges this criticism but adds that Halacha has the ability to deal with a sanctified past by pragmatic counterclaims. For example, the traditional family in canonical Jewish texts has the man studying Torah

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

215

and the woman caring for her family, but these traditional roles allow a certain internalization of modern values, at least in a slow process, though perhaps too slow for the supporters of modernity.118 From this theoretical basis, he compares two views on women’s Torah study: the responsum of Beit-Halevy and the position of R. Schneerson. The first is functionalist and pragmatic: a woman learns so she can perform the commandments. Although the scope of a woman’s study can be enlarged simply by increasing the number of commandments relevant to women’s lives, such a justification remains pragmatic and thus non-egalitarian. R. Shagar assumes that Halacha offers a model for proper social structure not indifferent to social reality: The discussion is therefore going to be about the boundaries of this structure that cannot be bent arbitrarily. Many laws of the Torah are built on a worldview and a certain social structure that constitute an entire world of meaning. Undermining the social structure can make the existence of these laws impossible or at least irrelevant. Therefore, the main effort of the decisor is to determine the boundaries of the essential social structure necessary for the existence of the Halacha.119 R. Shagar interprets the opinion of R. Schneerson as contrary to that of Beit Halevi because R. Schneerson gives women’s study the value of independent Torah study. R. Shagar discusses the text of a h.asidic discourse delivered by R. Schneerson on Lag Baomer 1990 and sees it as a true revolution in the classical approach to women’s education, because R. Schneerson sees in study, which the Talmud describes as dangerous, a source of blessing. There is also special value in the way women study Torah derived from the messianic vision, “female will circle male.” The gap between the two is that between male and female forms of study. Though he does not elaborate on its nature, Shagar identifies a feminine voice in study, a naturally feminine epistemology of sorts. This epistemology explains the objection of Rabbi Eli’ezer because the latter saw women’s Torah study as immodest, since women who study Torah invade a masculine field. Rabbi Joshua, however, is described as seeing Torah study not as immodest but leading to asceticism, the specific reason he opposes women’s Torah study. Asceticism, he claims, negates femininity. Ben Azai supports Torah study because he thinks modesty and fear of God are dependent on study, and ignorance will lead to immodesty.120 The end of the article focuses on the Talmud, which R. Shagar characterizes as a form of feminine thinking rather than male because it is not purely analytical, mixing pure legal fields and the fog of life. The Litvish scholastic model is therefore an innovation, since its methods of pure analysis are applied to texts not themselves completely analytical.121 The attempt to copy male ways of study is rejected. He wishes to support feminine Torah study which is part of the process of redemption. Its results have revolutionary potential:

216

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Women will redeem the Torah. They will rescue it from the straits in which it is captured. It is the fact that there is no tradition of women’s Torah study, that women are not subordinate to existing scholastic tradition that gives them the advantage and the possibility for a breakthrough.122 The lack of a tradition of learning will give their learning life, R. Shagar believes, in the same way he identified the growth of the study of the Hebrew bible in religious Zionist yeshivas that were in his view the result of a lack of boundaries, since there was no tradition of yeshiva study in this field. The distinction between R. Shagar and R. Ariel on this point is sharply drawn. Rabbi Ariel supports a feminine yeshiva, but one obligated to continue the male tradition of learning and would only be unique in the addition of more study of Hebrew bible and prayer. Even though he does not negate the study of Halacha by women, he does not identify a unique feminine voice. R. Ariel also uses the term “feminine voice,” but he does not see it as unique. He has basic awareness of cultural feminist literature and uses it in a way that dulls the potential critique of the feminine yeshiva but does not undermine the foundation of the traditional form of study. R. Shagar is not afraid of potential criticism and sees in the feminine voice a blessing in its detachment from the yeshiva learning tradition. R. Shagar’s articles represent a different voice in the yeshiva world. That he uses philosophical tools and is willing to entertain esotericism in a legal context is antithetical to classic jurisprudence. R. Shagar’s choice to use such methods testifies to his distinct voice in the study of Halacha. Women’s yeshivas established in Israel since the mid-1970s fall into two categories of study.123 The first are those close to the Kook circle, where the study of Talmud is at most very minimal. They are institutions aiming to create women with rich spiritual lives anchored in traditional roles in the home. Even though they glorify feminine culture, there is no change in the boundaries of gender roles, thus preserving the hierarchical system: in essence a metamorphosis of Beis Yaakov. There is an alternative route, also charted in R. Soloveitchik’s ideology, characterized by a liberal feminism that seeks equality without dealing with the differences between male and female norms. In the recent past, however, the second type of institutions has also begun to acknowledge the importance of developing a unique feminine voice in the study of Torah. Rabbi Shagar’s views have clear points of contact with cultural feminism. He praises a feminine voice independent of classical male structures and sees great advantage when it is freed from male epistemology. Unlike R. Ariel and Horowitz, R. Shagar does not fear criticism of the religious establishment. There are voices, however, that brand R. Shagar patriarchal because he supports a specific form of female epistemology.124 This criticism also strengthens the relationship of R. Shagar’s analysis to cultural feminism.125 R. Shagar’s post-modernism should be taken in context: he supports a “soft” post-modernism that does not destroy social and religious institutions. His use

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

217

of cultural feminism allows him to create a legitimate halachic model that allows women to study Torah and greatly minimizes the contradiction between the texts and liberal values.126

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Conclusion The letters, articles and responsa examined in this chapter contribute to a continuing discussion about women’s Torah study within a larger conversation about women’s roles in religious life. The discussion also reflects changes in the attitude of the rabbinic establishment. It began with the initial attempts to create the ulpena in the 1940s. After the revived discussion of the need for reform in girls’ religious education, in the debates that took place in the 1960s the majority of the participants in the discourse were raised in an Eastern European Orthodox context and adhered to the h.aredi consensus about women’s education. This consensus allowed women to study the Written Torah and some Oral Torah without the Talmud only as it would fortify their traditional Jewish identity in the face of modern challenges. Later on when women’s learning grew, there were rabbis in the 1980s who expressed limited support while still concerned that this study would follow a feminist agenda. Different deliberations about women’s Torah study in American Orthodoxy from R. Soloveitchik’s circles were, according to Tamar Ross, more positive and were in favor of explaining that the canonical texts’ objection to women’s religious education was based on a specific historical context not necessarily relevant today.127 The fear of women learning and taking advantage of their studies to criticize tradition underlies later texts, also among those generally considered leaders of the moderate Orthodox camp. The fear of change was voiced most extensively by R. Horowitz, who saw feminist Torah study as a danger for the foundations of the nation. The various authors deal with feminism as both byproduct and symbol of modernity. Since the basic ethos of moderate Orthodoxy is a dialogue with modernity, the discussion is not static. This dialogue engenders a discussion not present in h.aredi discourse, which negates modernity absolutely. Accompanying change in women’s roles in the public sphere were debates about women’s roles in religious society. These debates also dealt with women’s roles in religious life, and rabbinic discourse initially accepted these changes as a necessity of the times similar to the Eastern European model. But this is where the similarity ends. The h.aredi discourse sees change as a tool to perpetuate the status quo. The moderate Orthodox positions accepts changes in value. Even though there is no coherent model, the texts in this chapter have much in common. For even the most critical approaches to women’s Torah study, such as that of R. Horowitz, acknowledge value in some forms of women’s Torah study. Horowitz’s basic fear is that the lack of a feminine tradition of study is a potential danger: he and others were fearful that such study would lead to women taking the words of Torah and turning them to words of folly. By that he meant taking the words of Torah out of their proper context. The fact

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

218

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

that he completely desexualizes the text puts the focus on the struggle with modernity. Some of the authors were aware of cultural feminism and see it as a mediating factor, part of a solution that constructs a bridge between feminine nature and the study of Torah outside Talmud and Halacha. R. Shagar, however, sees the feminine yeshiva with its lack of scholastic tradition and potential for innovation as a decided advantage. The discussion in moderate Orthodoxy entails a double change: a position that does not negate modernity completely and a nuanced view of feminism. The various degrees of criticism of modernity lead to the conclusion that modernity is a process with positive and negative trends. The question of women’s roles in moderate Orthodoxy thus has a more complex answer than in the h.aredi world. The h.aredi approach sees changes in women’s roles as an attempt to uproot holiness from Jewish society, a characterization not quite as unequivocal in moderate Orthodoxy. This discussion allowed decisors like R. Ariel and Henkin not to discount completely the possibility of women becoming decisors. The attitude toward modernity is the product of a dialogue initiated by grassroots activists in the moderate Orthodox community in both America and Israel. They demanded changes to the traditional conceptions of women’s roles in Orthodox society, changes coming from below, not as a result of an ideological change that led to independent examination of women’s roles in Orthodox society. This change, though not initiated by the rabbinic establishment, led to a change in values. The meta-halachic dimension exists also in texts from other groups. Here, however, it was presented publically. Sometimes the halachic discussion is only summarized, and the majority of the text was dedicated to the meta-halachic aspect. The ideological nature of the discourse is not unique to this subject. In moderate Orthodox circles, the use of ideological discourse is widespread. It is different from the h.aredi use of Hashkafa – a term in the h.aredi world referring to ideological truths which are extra-halachic and are needed to deal with the challenges of modernity – since it clearly differentiates between Hashkafa and Halacha. Meta-Halacha is only alluded to in the halachic discussion. In the case of moderate Orthodoxy, however, the ideological aspect is not merely insinuated but quite explicit, thus making it easier to identify the tension between modernity and traditional values as well as trends of change. There is one genre of texts that could be relevant to this discussion but is absent, as it doesn’t really exist yet: the halachic discussion of women themselves on women’s Torah study. I did not find any real halachic discussions by women who, after all, are at the center of the debate. Perhaps women who wish to study Torah see it as self-evident in the same way that a judge who writes a verdict does not deal with the source of his authority to pass judgment. The actual discussion could be seen as apologetic or questioning what should be self-evident. But that is exactly the point. Nothing here is self-evident. The halachic discussion about women’s Torah study was always the child of necessity. Even the halachic discussion in moderate Orthodoxy was always

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

219

accompanied by a question mark. Virtually all texts betray a retroactive and contingent quality. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, a cadre of women has formed who are learning Torah and are publishing halachic articles in various journals. It is surprising that beyond an article by Malka Peterkofski,128 one of the first women to teach Talmud in women’s institutions, this subject has not been discussed in print. Her article contains a summary mentioning different sources, mostly treated in this chapter, but offers no innovative interpretation of tradition. A similar approach taken by an article by Esther Fisher, also a teacher in women’s yeshivas.129 In an article written by Esti Barel, the author criticizes the rabbinical attempt to set boundaries for women’s Torah study. She chooses to critique R. Shagar’s article, particularly because of his call for a uniquely feminine Torah study. She claims that the rabbinic establishment should not deal with women’s Torah study at all because it should be formulated by the women learning themselves.130 The article follows a different approach that does not see a need for a dialogue with the rabbinic establishment, but without parallel in the literature. In broad strokes, Noam Zohar introduces a halachic model that may represent the next phase of the discussion concerning women’s Torah study. Zohar does not discuss the prohibition in tractate Sotah at all, but sees it as irrelevant in practice. Women’s exemption from Torah study is problematic, Zohar argues, because Jewish religious identity is based upon Torah study. The exemptions from time-bound commandments grant one who is commanded and acts a higher spiritual status than one not commanded but who acts anyway.131 A woman’s need to reach a position of love and awe of God is no less than that of a man, and since study is the main route thence, there is a need to examine why women are exempt from study. Zohar proposes two hypothetical cases. First, women cannot learn Torah, but they will experience the love and awe of God through prayer and righteous deeds. Alternatively, the role of women is to enable men to study Torah by taking upon themselves the running of the home. He rejects the second reason because this relationship can only be entered by choice and moreover not predetermined by gender. Rabbinic literature often references the relationship of the tribes Zebulun and Issachar when two people chose to enter into a relationship where one supports financially another’s Torah studies. This option, however, is strictly voluntary: only if one is incapable of studying himself should he support others financially, thus it cannot be said that someone has been destined only to support Torah study. Zohar mentions talmudic sources where several sages argue that a woman merits only because her husband and sons study Torah. Zohar rejects this argument for the same reason: that the choice to support Torah study is a matter of individual choice. What led Maimonides to his adjudication, according to Zohar, is his perception of women as inherently incapable of studying Torah. Since in modern times this assumption about the nature of women has been disproven, does the exemption still stand?

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

220

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

As someone who sees himself bound by Halacha, Zohar sees no possibility of changing the interpretation ruling that women are exempt from Torah study. The option to readdress the exemption will rely on a future Sanhedrin with the authority to contradict a previous court’s interpretation. However, beyond this expectation of a future debate that will overturn the ancient Midrash, he claims the prohibition has no practical meaning. Zohar notes, however, that the Talmud in tractate Horayot teaches that the duty to obey the Sanhedrin is paired with an obligation not to act according to one of its rulings when it is completely clear that it is based on an error.132 Thus even though a person cannot adjudicate contrary to the ruling of the Sanhedrin, someone who knows that the Sanhedrin made an error in judgment cannot personally act upon it in spite of the Sanhedrin’s decision. In Zohar’s view, a woman who knows herself and has the ability to judge whether the exemption is relevant in her case or not raises an issue of self-awareness, not halachic policy. Halacha he wishes to leave untouched for now, and the changes will be in the privacy of one’s conscience. A woman who does not study Torah, he says, may not be liable to Bitul Torah (literally “nullification of the Torah,” a term referring to someone with free time to learn the Torah but does not do so, which is forbidden by Halacha), but she is negligent for not worshipping God with love and awe. Though Zohar’s text speaks halachic language, it uses halachic models with no parallels in traditional Halacha. This attempt to create a system that circumvents halachic rulings adjudicated by the sages of the Mishna had never been tried. Halachic discourse has not yet exhausted itself, and this text may be a harbinger for what is to come.

Notes 1 Charles Liebman, “Modern Orthodoxy in Israel,” Judaism 47 (1998), 405. 2 Liebman, “Modern Orthodoxy in Israel,” 409–10. 3 Tova Cohen, “Manhigut Datit Nashit: Haorthodoxya Hamodernit Beyisrael Kmikre Mivh.an,” Tarbut Demokratit 10 (2006), 259. 4 Cohen, “Manhigut Datit Nashit: Haorthodoxya Hamodernit Beyisrael Kmikreh Mivh.an,” 251–96. She surveys a long array of different phenomena concerning women’s roles in leadership positions in the religious world as an outcome of women’s Torah study institutions. 5 Tamar El-Or, Next Year I Will Know More: Literacy and Identity Among Young Women in Israel, trans. H . aim Watzman (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2002), 31–51. 6 El-Or, Next Year I Will Know More, 263–92. 7 http://yeshivatmaharat.org/ (retrieved 4/17/2013). See also: Ilan Fuchs, “Book Review on Tamar El-Or’s Next Year I Will Know More: Literacy and Identity among Young Women in Israel,” Women in Judaism 7:1 (2010). http://wjudaism.library. utoronto.ca/index.php/wjudaism/article/view/14671/11680 (retrieved 4/17/2013). 8 Ehud Luz, Parallels meet: Religion and Nationalism in the Early Zionist Movement (1882–1904), trans. Lenn J. Schramm (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1985), 91–110.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

221

9 Lilakh Rosenburg-Friedman, Mahapkhaniyot Be’al Khorh.an: Nashim Umigdar Baz.iyonut Hadatit Bitkufat Hayishuv (Jerusalem: Yad Yiz.hak Ben Z.vi, 2005), 31. 10 Bruria Michmen, “Tokhniyot Halimudim Lebatei Hasefer Ha’amamiyim shel Hamizrah.i Mishnat 1932,” in Bein Masoret Leh.idush: Meh.karim Beyahadut Z.iyonut U’medinat Yisrael, Eliezer Don Yih.ya ed. (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Press 2005), 202. 11 Michmen “Tokhniyot Halimudim Lebatei Hasefer Ha’amamiyim,” 219. 12 Rosenburg-Friedman, Mahapkhaniyot Be’al Khorh.an, 32. 13 Lilakh Rosenburg-Friendman, Haulpenot Harishonot Bitkufat Hayishuv (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press 2002). 14 Pnina Shakdiel, “Leshe’elat Limud Hayahadut Lebanot Bebeit-Sefer Hatikhon Hadati,” De’ot 8 (1959), 15. 15 Elimelech Bar-Shaul, “Leh.inukha shel Habat Bamekorot,” in Hah.inukh Hadati shel Habat, (n.p: 1964), 5–13. 16 Shah.ar Ben-Sarim, “Al Lomdot Torah Umelamdehen,” Shma’atin 2 (1964), 19–21. 17 Jacob Kopel Reiniz., “Tguva,” Shma’atin 3 (1964), 49–52. 18 Published in 1755 by the Lithuanian rabbinical casuist Aryeh Leib ben Asher Gunzberg, famous for its in-depth analysis of the Talmud. 19 Reiniz., “Tguva,” 54. 20 H . ava Frankel-Goldschmidt, “Hora’at Talmud Lebanot,” Shma’atin 31 (1972), 60–61. 21 Shlomo Min-Hahar, “Mikhtav Tguva,” Shma’atin 32 (1972), 29. 22 Moshe Arendt, “Mikhtav Tguva,” Shma’atin 32 (1972), 31. 23 R.i.a Lange, “Mikhtav Tguva,” Shma’atin 32 (1972), 32. 24 Idit Re’im, “Mikhtav Tguva,” Shma’atin 32 (1972), 33. 25 Shimon Vayzer, “Talmud Torah – Ha’etgar Bifnei Bat Yisrael,” Shma’atin 45 (1976), 56–57. 26 Moses Z.vi Neriya, “H . inukhan shel Bnot Haulpanot,” Shma’atin (1968), 68. 27 February 2, 1960, Religious Zionism Archive, Bnei Akiva in Israel Section, Folder 41. 28 February 2, 1960, Religious Zionism Archive, Bnei Akiva in Israel Section, Folder 41. 29 Judah Moriel, “Erkhei H . inukh Utkhanei Limud Bah.inukh Hadati Lebanot,” Bisde H . emed 12 (1969), 17. 30 Moriel, “Erkhei H . inukh,” 17. 31 Dina Borovski, “Limud Mishnah Bebatei Sefer Lebanot,” Bisde Hemed 4 (1961), 399–401. 32 Z.vi Kleman, “Hora’at Torah Shbe’al-Pe Umah.shevet Yisrael Lebanot,” Shma’atin 64 (1981), 23–26; Moshe Yismh., “Hirhurim Al Megamot Udrakhim Behora’at Torah Shbe’al-Pe Lebanot,” Shma’atin 69 (1982), 26–32. 33 For an in-depth discussion of the ideology of the religious Kibbutz educational system, see: Ester Shfara’am, “Hama’arekhet Hah.inukhit shel Kibuz.ei Hakibuz. Hadati Vekibuz.ei Po’alei Agudat Yisrael – Meymad Mashve,” unpubl. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 1994. 34 Tova Kula, “H . agigat Bat Miz.tzvah Vlimud Gmara Lenashim Kedfus H . inukh Vetrabut Yih.udiyim shel Hana’arah Bakibuz. Hadati,” unpubl. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 1994, 80. 35 Menah.em Bolah, “Hora’at Torah Shebe’al-Pe,” Alonim 38 (1949), 45–49. 36 Isaac Veil, “Lema’an Yilmad Le’yirah et Hashem,” Amudim 210 (1964), 38. 37 Kula, “H . agigat Bat Miz.tzvah,” 89. She bases her claim on the decisions of the religious Kibbutz Council from 1960 and 1976. 38 Z.uriel Admanit, “Ma’amad Haishah Bahalacha Ubh.evratenu,” in Betokh Hazerem Venegdo, Isaac Asher ed. (Tel Aviv: Religious Kibutz Press 1977), 99–106. For a similar point of view see by the same author “Al Nith.amek Min Haberur,” Amudim 128 (1957), 13–14.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

222

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

39 Joseph Ah.ituv, “Ha’ishah Umiz.vat Talmud Torah,” Amudim 377 (1976), 187–89. Ah.ituv laments that some of the members of the Kibbutz see Admanit’s strong support of the necessity of women to study Talmud as a reform. 40 For another example see Amnon Shapira, “Ma’amad Haishah Beh.evrah Me’orevet Bat Zmanenu – Tmurot alpi Hahalakha,” Ha’ishah Bimkorot Hayahadut (Jerusalem: Education and Culture Ministry 1983), 41–42. 41 Simh.a Friedman, “Talmud Torah Lenashim Beyamenu,” in: Yahadut Beh.evrat Yamenu: Emdat Hayahadut Le’erkhei Hah.evrah Veimutah im Hamez.iut Hah.evratit (Jerusalem: The Education and Culture Ministry, 1980), 53–66. 42 Kula, “H . agigat Bat Miz.tzvah Vlimud Gmara,” 104. 43 Kula, “H . agigat Bat Miz.tzvah Vlimud Gmara,” 127–33. She concludes that the study of Talmud was not highly effective in fashioning the religious identity of the female students. 44 Yehudah Mirsky, “An Intellectual and Spiritual Biography of Rabbi Avraham Yitzhaq Hacohen Kook from 1865 to 1904,” unpubl. PhD diss., Harvard University, 2007; Dov Schwartz, Faith at the Crossroads: A Theological Profile of Religious Zionism, Batya Stein trans. (Leiden: Brill, 2002). 45 Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook, Igrot Haraya, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1962), section 467. 46 The letter was published in full: Eliav Shochetman, “Shiurei Torah Bemosad H . iloni: Tshuvat Maran Hara’aya Kook,” Teh.umin 10 (1989), 256–57. 47 Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook, Mitzvot Haraya (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1985), 105. A similar conclusion was reached by Avinoam Roznak, Hahalacha Hanevuit (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2007), 251–52. 48 Kook, Igrot Haraya, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1962), section 98, 240, 277. See also ibid., vol. 2, section 349, 593. He reiterates the need to modify the curriculum according to gender roles and the new situation in Jewish society in pre-state Israel. 49 Dov Schwartz, “Harav Hanazir Al Ma’amad Haishah,” Telalei Orot 5 (1994), 192–93. 50 Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Family Redeemed: Essays on Family Relationships (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 2000), 70. 51 Aviezer Ravitzky, “H . adash min Hatorah? Al Haortodoxyah Ve’al Hamodernah,” in Emunah Bizmanim Mishtanim: Al Mishnato shel Harav Y.D. Soloveitchik, Avi Sagi ed. (Jerusalem: Religious Kibutz Press, 1997), 445–59; Avi Sagi, “Harav Soloveitchik: Hagut Yehudit Lenokhah. Hamoderna,” in Emuna Bizmanim Mishtanim, 461–500; Avi Sagi, Etgar Hashiva el Hamasoret (Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2003), 30–58. For a non-academic biography on R. Soloveitchik see Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, The Rav: The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House, 1999). For critiques of this biography see Shlomo Pick, “The Rav: Biography and Bibliography,” BDD 6 (1998), 27–44; idem, “The Rav: The Need for a Comprehensive Biography,” BDD 10 (2000), 37–57. 52 Seth Farber, An American Orthodox Dreamer, (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2003), 33–35. 53 Farber, An American Orthodox Dreamer, 41. 54 Twersky, “A Glimpse of the Rav: Talmud Torah for Women and the Mehitsa Controversy,” in Women and the Study of Torah, Joel Wolowelsky ed., (Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House, 2001), 110. 55 Lawrence Kaplan, “The Multi-Faceted Legacy of the Rav,” BDD 7 (1998), 55–57. 56 Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Community, Covenant and Commitment – Selected Letters and Communications, Nathaniel Helfgot ed. (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 2006), 82–83.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

223

57 Soloveitchik, Community, Covenant and Commitment, 83. 58 One of his students testified that he talked to R. Soloveitchik about this issue, and he was told that the study of Torah was necessary for girls in this generation and should be seen in the same light as writing down the Oral Torah, permitted because of the danger of its being forgotten. See Moshe Arye Mozeson, “H . inukh Banot (Im Horaot R. Soloveitchik),” Hadarom 66–67 (1998), 63–66. 59 Farber, An American Orthodox Dreamer, 81–84. An example for one of his student’s interpretations, see: Meir Twersky, “A Glimpse of the Rav,” 49–54. 60 Ben Zion Alon, “H . ayey Harav; The Life of the Rabbi,” in Beit Hilel, Ephraim Tobenhoyz ed. (Tel Aviv: n.p., 1951), 7. For a non-academic biography see: Tzvia Koren-Loeb, Haga’on Harav Hilel Posek. (1881–1953): H . ayav. Ufo’olo (Ramat Gan: n.p. 2011). 61 Alon, “H . ayey Harav,” 11. 62 Hillel Posek, “Hakdama,” Hilel Omer (Tel Aviv: 1957), no pagination. In Rabbi Unterman’s haskama to Posek’s posthumous book of responsa, Unterman writes that the anthology of articles about Halacha published in Posek’s journal should not be relied upon in practice, having found two answers where Posek’s conclusion was contrary to normative Halacha. 63 See chapter 2, pp. 47f. 64 Isaac Alfasi, “Firer, Ben-Tzion,” in Encycopedia shel Haz.iyunut Hadatit, vol. 6, Isaac Rafael et al. eds. (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 2000), 719–21. 65 Ben Z.ion Firer, “Beinyan Limud Torah Lebanot,” No’am 3 (1960), 131–34. 66 Alfasi, Encycopedia shel Haz.iyunut Hadatit, 732. 67 Natan Z.vi, Friedman, Nez.er Mata’ai, “Hakdama” (Bnei-Brak: 1957), no pagination. 68 Natan Z.vi Friedman, “Miz.vat Limud Torah Shebeal-Pe Lenashim Keyz.ad?” Shma’atin 4 (1965), 45–47. 69 Moses Mayah, A World Built, Destroyed, and Rebuilt: Rabbi Yehuda Amital’s Confrontation with the Memory of the Holocaust (Jersey City: Ktav Publishing House, 2004). For a non-academic biography see Elyashiv Reichner, By faith alone: the story of Rabbi Yehuda Amital (trans. Elli Fischer, New Milford, CT, Jerusalem: Maggid, 2011). 70 Judah Amital, “Ba’ayot Yesod Beh.inukh Haishah,” in Ha’ishah Veh.inukha, Ben-Z.ion Rosenfeld ed. (Kfar-Saba: Emuna, 1980), 165–69. 71 Aaron Lichtenstein, “Ba’ayot Yesod Beh.inukha shel Haishah,” in Haishah Veh.inukha, 157–59. 72 For a short biographical description see Arye Shalom, “Vehayu Einekha Ro’ot et Morekha,” Shma’atin 172–73 (2008), 15–34. 73 Abraham Shapira, “Tshuva Hilchatit-Ra’ayonit Leba’ayot Beh.inukh Haishah,” in Haishah Veh.inukha, 49–54. 74 Arye Edrei, “Divine Spirit and Physical Power: Rabbi Shlomo Goren and the Military Ethic of the Israel Defense Forces,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 7 (2006), 255–97. For a non-academic biography see Shalom Freedman, Rabbi Shlomo Goren Torah Sage and General (Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2006); also see Aviad Hollander, “Dyokano Hahilkhati shel Harav Shlomo Goren: Iyunim Beshikulei Hapsika Vedarchei Habisus Bema’amarav hahilkhatiyim,” unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2011. 75 Shlomo Goren, “Seder Nashim,” Th.umin 25 (2005), 378–80. See specifically note 11 in the article. 76 Goren, “Seder Nashim,” 379–80. 77 Judah Henkin, “Hakdama,” Bnei-Banim, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: 1981), no pagination. 78 Henkin, Bnei-Banim, vol. 3 (Jerusalem: 1997), section 12. 79 Menah.em Elon, Hamishpat Haivri, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973), 436–39. 80 Judah Henkin, “Feminism, Halacha Velimud Torah,” in Lihiyot Ishah Yehudiah, Margalit Shilo ed. (Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2001), 73–76.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

224

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

81 Moshe Weinberger, “Teaching Torah to Women,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 9 (1985), 19–52; Yaron Unger, “Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Yesha Yemino 51 (1997), 90–112; H . agai Nir, “Limud Torah Lenashim,” Yesha Yemino 51 (1997), 64–84; Aaron Halperin, “Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Orot Ez.ion 22–23 (1993), 275–304; Efrayim Bez.alel Halivni, “Nashim Vetalmud Torah,” Hadarom 61 (1992), 25–34; Shlomo Wahrman, “Miz.vat Talmud Torah Benashim,” Hadarom 46 (1978), 55–62; Neria Guttel, “Talmud Torah Lenashim: Halacha Behishtalshelutah Ubehithavutah,” in Tal Leisrael, Michael Shtigliz. ed. (Merkaz Shapira: n.p., 2005), 41–64; Moshe Helinger, “Hamelamed et Bito Torah Melamda Tiflut – Haumnam?,” Shma’atin 170 (2005), 110–24; H . ayyim Navon, “Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Teh.umin 28 (2008), 248–57. Even the discussion about teaching Mishnah in girls’ school that began as early as the 1950s repeats itself almost without any change more than half a century later: Avia Elba, “Hora’at Mishnah Lebanot Bebeit-Hasefer Hayesodi,” Shma’atin 172–73 (2008), 220–34. 82 Abraham Vaserman, “Ma’ase Beplonit,” Haz.ofe (December 8, 2006) Supplement, 14–15. 83 Rosenburg-Friedman, Mahapkhaniyot Be’al Korkhan. 84 Tamar El-Or, Next Year I will Know More: Literacy and Identity Among Young Orthodox Women (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2002). 85 This trend was not discussed extensively by El-Or. 86 No extensive research has looked into the connection between women’s Torah studies and feminist ideas. In an article based on a relatively small survey, Hannah Kehat found a clear correlation between women who study Torah and their egalitarian views. H . ana Kehat, “Ma’amad Hanashim Velimud Hatorah Bah.evrah Haortodoxit,” Akadamot 7 (1991), 130–32. 87 Elisha Aviner, “Limud Gmara Lebanim Velimud Gmara Lebanot,” Shirat Alamot, Yaakov Arzoni ed. (Kiryat Arba: Machon Lerabanei Yishuvim, 2004), 197–204. 88 On another occasion R. Ariel published an article dealing with the halachic aspects of women’s Torah study. See Jacob Ariel, “Ha’ishah Ba’idan Hamoderni Le’or Hahalacha,” Telalei Orot 13 (2007), 123–47. Women’s study is not a goal in and of itself, but a tool, and there is reason to fear that it will be related to a problematic feminist agenda. Ibid., 126–27. 89 Jacob Ariel, “Beit Hamidrash Hanashi,” Shirat Alamot, 207. 90 Micah Halpern, H . ana Safrai eds., Jewish Legal Writings by Women (New York: Urim Publications, 1998). 91 Ariel, “Beit Hamidrash Hanashi,” 210–12. 92 Ariel, “Beit Hamidrash Hanashi,” 213. 93 Yuval Cherlow, “Talmud Torah shel Nasim – Sikuyim Vesikunim,” Lihiyot Ishah Yehudiah, vol. 1, Margalit Shilo ed. (Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2001), 67–72. 94 Ishay Rosen-Tzvi, “Metafisika Behithavutah: Hapulmus Beyeshivat Merkaz Harav-Iyun Bikorti,” Me’ah shnot Z.iyonnut Datit, vol. 3, Avi Sagi et al. eds. (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2003), 421–25. 95 The article was written by Rebecca Lubiz., who became in later years one of the most prominent activists of the feminist Orthodox movement. Rebecca Lubiz., “Mikhtav Lama’arekhet,” Amudim 11 (1997), 322–26. 96 Eli Horowitz, Milh.emet Hatarbut (H . ebron: Me’emek H . evron, 2007) 127–34. 97 Yeh.ezkel Cohen, “Hamh.loket Bein Harabanim Kook Veuziel Zez.al al Matan Zkhut Bh.irah Lenashim,” Hapnina, Dov Rapel ed. (Jerusalem: Bney H . emed, 1989), 52–69. 98 Horowitz, Milh.emet Hatarbut, 135–40. 99 Horowitz, Milh.emet Hatarbut, 147. 100 Horowitz, Milh.emet Hatarbut, 149–50.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

225

101 Horowitz, Milh.emet Hatarbut, 186–96. 102 Horowitz, Milh.emet Hatarbut, 201. 103 For a good example of this combination see: Rosenberg, “Emuna Velashon lfi Ha’admor Hazaken Meh.abad Meperspsktivat Halashon shel Vitginstein,” Al Haemunah – Iyunim Bemusag Haemuna Vtoldotav Bahagut Hayehudit, Moshe Halbertal et al. eds. (Jerusalem: Keter, 2005), 365–87. 104 Avih.ai Z.ur, “Dekonstrukz.yah Dekdusha – Mavo Lehaguto shel Harav Shagar,” Akadamot 21 (2008), 110–39; For a discussion on post-modernism and his approach to feminism, see Ilan Fuchs, “Kol Mishelah Velimud Torah: Harav Shimon Rozenberg Vefeminism Tarbuti,” in Iyunim Bitkumat Israel: Migdar Beyisrael, Margalit Shilo, Gideon Katz eds. (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 2010), 771–89. 105 The articles were printed for the first time in two different journals. The first: Rosenberg, “Talmud Torah Ve’erkho – Talmud Torah Lenashim Beshitat Harambam,” in Be’er Mayim H . ayyim, Yehuda Shaviv ed. (Kerem Beyavne: Kerem Beyavne Yeshiva, 1999), 123–47. The second by the same author: “Ro’im et Hakolot – Lamdanut Yeshivatit Vekol Nashi Belimud Torah,” Masekhet 5 (2006), 45–68. These articles were published again with minor changes. The first with a different name: “Bein shlemut Ishit Letiyug H . evrati: Talmud Torah Lenashim Leshitat Harambam,” in Shnei Hameorot – Hashivyon Bamishpah.ah Mimabat Yehudi H . adash, Zohar Maor ed. (Efrata: Siah. Yitzh.ak Yeshiva, 2007), 37–61, and the second in the same volume: “Ro’im et Hakolot – Lamdanut Yeshivatit Vekol Nashi Belimud Torah,” Shnei Hameorot, 62–84. The following quotations will be from the last publication. 106 Shimon Gershon Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 42. 107 Yosef Faur, Iyunim Bemishnat Harambam, (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1978), 177–93. Faur asserts that Maimonides makes a clear distinction between the external and hidden aspects of the Torah. Blidstein discusses this exhaustively while using different phrasing than Faur, even though he still distinguishes between the philosophical aspect of Torah study, which is hidden, and the halachic aspect, which has a scientific character. Gerald Blidstein, Samkhut Umeri Behilkhot Harambam: Perush Nirh.av Lehilkhot Mamrim 1–4 (Tel Aviv: Hakibuz. Hameuh.ad, 2002), 27–30. 108 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 45. 109 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 47. 110 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 50. 111 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 50–51. 112 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 54. 113 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 56. 114 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 57. 115 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 58–59. 116 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 61. 117 Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982). 118 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 64–65. 119 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 68. 120 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 73–74. 121 He gives the example of a discussion conducted by R. Soloveichik on the obligation of prayer: Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 76–80. 122 Rosenberg, Shnei Hameorot, 81. 123 Tamar Ross, “A Bet-Midrash of Her Own: Women’s Contribution to the Study and Knowledge of Torah,” in Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, Howard Kreisel ed. (Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006), 309–58.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

226

Moderate Orthodoxy and women’s Torah study

124 Esti Barel, “Al Patriarkhiyah Vekolot Nashiyim: Mabat Bikorti al Limud Torah Lenashim Btfisat Harav Shagar,” Akadamot 20 (2008), 39–53. 125 Fuchs, “Kol Meshelah Velimud,” 784–88. 126 Fuchs, “Kol Meshelah Velimud Torah,” 788–89. 127 Tamar Ross, Expanding the Palace of the Torah: Orthodox in Feminism (Waltham, MA: Brandeis Press, 2004), 73–77. 128 Malka Peterkofski, “Iyun Besugiyat Nashim Vetalmud Torah – Issur? Reshut? Miz.va? H . ova?” in Me’emuna Lemaaseh – Shiv’im Shanah Ltnuaat Emunah, Lilakh Rosenberg-Friedman ed. (Jerusalem: Emuna, 2006), 89–129. 129 Esti Fisher, “Shikulim Erkhiyim Bepsika Beinyan Talmud Torah Lenshaim,” in Lihiyot Ishah Yehudiah, vol. 1, Margalit Shilo ed. (Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2001), 95–105; Neomy Levenstein, “Limud Torah Lenashim,” Pnei Mos, (n.p., 2008), 214–25. 130 Barel, “Al Patriarkhiyah Vekolot Nashiyim: Mabat Bikorti al Limud Torah Lenashim Btfisat Harav Shagar,” 50–53. 131 Noam Zohar, “Hakol h.ayavin Belimud Torah: Ma’amadan shel Nashim Kmh.uyavot Medeorayta Betalmud Torah Ubehidabkut Behashem,” in Lihiyot Ishah Yehudiyah, vol. 4, Tova Cohen ed. (Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2007), 227–82. 132 Zohar, “Hakol h.ayavin Belimud Torah,” 288. The footnotes reference the sources of the Talmudic discussion in Horayot.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Conclusion

Nobel laureate Shmuel Yosef Agnon tells the story of Tehilla, an ancient woman now living in Jerusalem, whose life has been beset by tragedy. Her greatest disappointment, however, was a daughter, her sole surviving child: To all appearances my daughter did not need me, since I had taken teachers for her and she was busy with her studies and I received many praises about her. And even the Gentiles who mock at us for speaking an outlandish tongue used to praise my daughter, and said she spoke their tongue with the best of them. And above all the Gentile teachers made much of her and invited her to their homes. I called the matchmakers and they found me a bridegroom renowned for his knowledge of Torah and an ordained rabbi. But I never had the privilege of leading them to the canopy, for an evil spirit entered into my daughter and she became crazy.1 The “evil spirit” was one of cultural seduction: Tehilla’s daughter forsakes not only her future husband, a rabbi and Torah scholar, but also her Jewish faith. Having lived and learned among Polish Catholics, she flees on the eve of marriage to become a nun. On one level, Tehilla is an allegory of the history of Jews in Eastern Europe. Agnon alludes to an historical situation now familiar: the daughter’s apostasy resulted from a lack of Jewish education, which Tehilla’s two sons enjoyed from Orthodox teachers unsullied by the Haskhala,2 but not her daughter. A weak Jewish identity coupled with a secular education under nonJewish teachers leads her to forsake her people. She is not like Chava, Teyve’s daughter who marries a non-Jew in Fiddler on the Roof: Tehilla’s daughter enters a Catholic religious order. Her deepest spiritual needs could not be satisfied in the Judaism that the social structure of Orthodox communities allowed her to understand and practice. Far richer than the literary types of Yentl, Chava, or Tehilla’s daughter, halachic texts project a wildly varied typology of women. A single word with an elusive etymology, tiflut becomes extraordinarily elastic, expanding at will to encompass a variety of female types. It may vibrate with seduction and

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

228

Conclusion

promiscuity, accuse of innate cognitive limitations, occasionally both at the same time. Intuitively faithful, yet an intellectual lightweight unable to master complex analysis and logic, a woman may still be a potential adulteress should she learn “cunning” from Torah. Images of a naïve in need of protection even from herself segue into a mother, wife, and industrious keeper of the Jewish home, who in one community becomes the sole breadwinner. Antifeminist polemic creates an image of a dangerous subversive: a strident feminist wanting full access to “Man’s World” contrary to her true nature. For other rabbis, a woman is a gently persuasive activist on a mission of outreach or the embodiment of an eternal female principle. The image of woman as faithful Jew engaging sacred texts occurs historically only in narratives of exceptional women or in lists of the female luminaries of Jewish history, emerging only in recent decades as an ideal for women as a class. Beginning when Tehilla was young, the story of Jewish women in the nonfictional universe is a story of change, of social mobility, acculturation – and at times assimilation. The poverty and hopelessness that were the life of Jews in Galicia or the Pale of Settlement suddenly were not the only option. Economic opportunities paved the way to social mobility, especially in the New World. Societies secularizing into the modern West impacted the life of Orthodox Jewish communities, giving birth to a new phenomenon: Jewish identity not solely based on the Torah. Faced with this new reality, rabbinic authorities present a myriad of responses adopting, accommodating, or rejecting modern values. Halachic discourse on women’s education is thus the interplay of three motifs: traditional community, modern Western values, and women. Beyond giving voice to deep-seated assumptions about gender, rabbis and community leaders create different models of how community and Western culture relate,3 which in turn may shape their vision of women’s education. While firmly opposed to modernity, the h.aredi world still allows for incremental change in gender roles, mostly defended as an ad hoc accommodation to social realities. These minor changes are essentially cosmetic, but offer enough halachic legitimacy for proponents of education for women to begin founding schools, finding their models outside h.aredi circles. The history absent in h.aredi rhetoric is that Sarah Schenirer had to go to Vienna and encounter German neo-Orthodoxy and its “rabbi-doctors” before she could establish what was to become the cornerstone of h.aredi society. The h.aredi version of history is silent about this inspiration behind Beis Yaakov – and that university-educated women from Germany helped build its infrastructure. Rabbis in favor of such schools focus instead on ad hoc change in light of social conditions, at the same time insulating Halacha from radical innovation and themselves from conservative criticism that they might be engaging in just such innovation. The image of the woman projecting from h.aredi texts is an intricate one. She is an emotional creature easily susceptible to the bad influence of modern values, yet the center of the Jewish home. While men are to dedicate their

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Conclusion

229

entire lives to Torah study, the woman becomes the sole breadwinner, yet still the prime caregiver at home. Equipping her for this demanding role is indispensable to the “learner’s society.” In a h.aredi version of Agnon’s tale, Tehilla’s daughter would receive a Jewish education strong enough to allow her to function in the wider world where she would likely be employed. And although she would enjoy the blessings of Torah study only vicariously, she could not remain ignorant of her rich spiritual heritage as a Jew. Satmar rabbis position community squarely against Western culture and fear that all their women would become like Tehilla’s daughter. In a radicalization of the standard h.aredi narrative, traditional community values completely overpower Western culture, resulting in a model of women’s education that rejects any modern notions of gender. Their vision was that of a last stand, a cultural Armageddon, in which the last remnants of authentic Judaism, awaiting imminent redemption will reject the fallacies of the majority culture. This results in rhetoric that evokes primordial fears, adultery and promiscuity, and brooks no exceptions to the rule blocking women’s access to holy texts. Women become potential agents through which modern change might infiltrate. H . abad embodies a transformative approach to Jewish culture, exchanging cultural isolation for worldwide outreach. A re-reading of canonical texts by a charismatic visionary leader focuses on positive images of women. The Seventh Rebbe empowers women to take part in the messianic project, making them equal partners in the active quest to bring about redemption. A new model of the feminine arises from these texts: strong, proactive, with an unshakable religious identity. All women become exceptional and thus encouraged to study Torah. The sheluh.ah is an activist seeking to change people’s lives through a renewed relationship to Jewish customs, worship, and literature. This new role can only be scripted by significant reinterpretation of canonical sources, a novelty that can only gain currency when advocated by a respected and charismatic Torah scholar. For moderate Orthodoxy, Judaism and modernity remain in a paradoxical tension. Since modernity is not a monolithic adversary but a cultural given, the paradox can only be resolved through community self-reflection on a case-by-case basis. This results not only in a large and vibrant public discourse, but a slowly evolving model of women’s education. Moderate Orthodox discourse moved from a Zionist version of Beis Yaakov to a model that enables women’s Torah study, acknowledging the egalitarian elements of its argument. This egalitarian trend requires justification, an explanation that will clarify whether it is a legitimate halachic innovation and not an illegitimate reform. In essence, true halachic discourse about women’s Torah study – rather than its permission or prohibition – is just beginning. There is no common image of the ideal woman in moderate Orthodox circles, ultimately because it is left to the individual woman to determine how she is to live as both modern woman and faithful Jew. At the same time, modern feminism offers a range of identities. Beyond mere biology, is a

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

230

Conclusion

woman the same as a man, or do the separate spheres of the Orthodox gendered universe still have a place in the modern world? The dimorphic world of the canonical texts is challenged by a modern value system that criticizes gender roles and frowns upon discourse about women’s ontological characteristics. The rabbinic canon from which separate spheres for men and women were formed is now re-read in a world that is trying forcibly to merge the two. Conservative elements see any exception as opening the floodgates to modernism while progressives feel that rhetoric that transforms all women into exceptions is mere apologetics with no halachic substance. Women’s education in this discourse goes far beyond what it was in canonical texts. From a practical issue with limited relevance it becomes a proxy for modernity in its entirety. This made women’s education the locus of larger battles, engendering countless reinterpretations of a Mishnah, a few lines in the Talmud, and a handful of remarks by medieval commentators. After all is said and done, more than a hundred and fifty years of conversation on women’s education comes down to the truth that to be Jewish is to learn Torah. More than anything else, the religious quest for God is in the endless space between the lines of the Torah and the attempt to understand women’s religiosity through them. The centrality of the text in Jewish religiosity dictates that the discovery of women’s part in it will be done in, through, and with the same texts. These are things of which one enjoys the fruits in this world, While the principle remains for him in the World to Come: Honoring one’s father and mother, Doing acts of kindness, Coming early day and night to the Beit Midrash, Hospitality to strangers, Visiting the sick, Donating for the dowry of a bride, Escorting the deceased, Concentrating in prayer, Bringing peace between one and another and between a husband and wife, But the study of Torah is equal to them all. —Mishnah Pe’ah 1,1

Notes 1 Shmuel Yosef Agnon, Tehilla, and other Israeli Tales, trans. I. M. Lask (London and New York: Ram’s Horn books, 1956), 42. 2 Ibid., 38. 3 The following typology echoes Richard Niebuhr’s understanding of the interaction of religion and culture. See: Jacob Neusner, “Torah and Culture: H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture after Fifty Years: A Judaic Response.” In Judaism and Christianity: New Directions for Dialogue and Understanding, Alan Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner eds. (Boston, MA: Brill, 2010) 217–42.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Glossary of non-English terms

A fortiori

even more so

Acharonim

Lit. “last ones,” leading rabbis and decisors, sixteenth century to the present.

Aggadah

Homiletic and non-legal exegetical texts in the classical rabbinic literature of Judaism, particularly as recorded in the Talmud and Midrash.

Agudat Ah.im

Lit. “United Brethren,” A Jewish society aiding charitable causes.

Agudat Israel

Lit. “Union of Israel,” founded in 1912 as an umbrella organization for observant Jews who opposed the Zionist movement.

Ahavat Yisra’el

A biblical commandment mandating love among fellow Jews.

Al taharat hakodesh

Without foreign influences, devoted to holy tradition.

Amoraim

Lit. “those who say,” the scholars of Talmud in Babylon and Eretz Yisrael c. 200–500 CE.

Armumi’ut

Cunningness.

Arvit

Evening prayer.

Ashkenaz

Region mainly around current day Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, and parts of northern France.

Avoda Zara

Lit. “idolatry,” eighth tractate in Mishnah Nezikin dealing with laws pertaining to idol worshiping and Jews-Gentiles relations.

Azara

The court of the temple.

Ba’alei (m), Ba’a Returnees to Orthodox Judaism, see also hozer betshuva. lot (f) tshuvah

232

Glossary of non-English terms

Baba-Kama

First tractate in Mishnah Nezikin, deals with civil matters, largely damages and compensation.

Barayta

Tanaitic material not mentioned in the Mishnah.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Batel ta’am batla Rule of Jewish law: if the rationale is null, then the regulation takana is also to be nullified. Berakhot

Lit. “benedictions,” first tractate in Mishna Zeraim, deals with rules and blessings relating to prayer.

Beis Yaakov or Beit Yaakov

Lit. “house of Jacob,” common name for Orthodox schools for Jewish girls.

Beiz.a

Lit. “egg,” seventh tractate in Mishnah Moed, deals with the rules to be observed on Yom Tov (Jewish holidays).

Beit Midrash

Lit. “house of learning,” refers to a study hall, whether in a synagogue, yeshiva, kollel, or other building

Birkhot hashah.ar Morning benediction. Bitul Torah

Lit. “nullification of the Torah,” refers to someone with free time to learn the Torah but does not do so.

Challah

Braided egg bread eaten on Sabbath and holidays.

Cohen

A priest. Beyond the ability to serve in the Temple, a priest has the right to accept tithes.

Da’at Torah

Lit. “Opinion of Torah,” concept in h.aredi society according to which Jews should seek the input of rabbinic scholars not just on matters of Jewish law but on all important matters.

Da’atan kez.ra

Minds attuned to brevity.

Dayan

Judge in rabbinical court.

Derasha

A homily or sermon, generally preached by a rabbi in the synagogue.

Divrei Elokim Hayyim

Lit. “The words of the living God,” a term referring to h.asidic teachings

Eretz Yisrael

Lit. “land of Israel,” a biblical and historical geographic designation.

Eschaton

(Greek) “last,” end of times.

Gedolei Yisra’el

Lit. “great ones of Israel,” Hebrew term used by religious Jews to refer to the most revered rabbis of the generation.

Gilgul

Reincarnation.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Glossary of non-English terms

233

H . agiga

Lit. “festivities,” Talmudic tractate that details the laws of the biblically mandated thrice-yearly pilgrimage to the Holy Temple on Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot.

Hakhel

Lit. “assemble,” assembly of all Jewish men, women and children to hear the reading of the Torah that took part after each sabbatical year in the temple.

Halacha

Collective body of religious laws for Jews.

Harh.akot

Lit. “distancings,” a term for customs aimed to minimize the chance for physical contact between a husband and an impure wife.

H . asidism

branch of Orthodox Judasim founded in eighteenth-century Eastern Europe by Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov as a reaction against overly legalistic Judaism. Puts an emphasis on pietistic religious life.

Hashkafa

Lit. “outlook,” refers to one’s personal worldview regarding Jewish philosophy and Halacha

Haskamot

Rabbinic approbations of a printed work.

Haskhala

the Jewish Enlightenment, a movement among European Jews in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Promoted modernization, liberal values and secular education.

Havdala

Lit. “separation,” Jewish religious ceremony marking the symbolic end of Shabbat and Jewish holidays

H . eder (sing.), h.adarim (plur.)

Lit. “room,” the name of the typical Jewish elementary school in Eastern Europe.

Hedyot

Simpleton.

Hekhsher miz.va

acts needed for the fulfillment of a commandment but are not officially part of that comandment.

Hesder Yeshiva

Lit. “arrangement,” an Israeli yeshiva program that combines advanced Talmudic studies with military service in the Israel Defense Forces, usually within a Religious Zionist framework.

Heter

Permission.

Hitva’adut

H . asidic get-together.

Horayot

Last tractate of Mishna Nezikin, discusses laws pertaining to errors in judgment by a Jewish court.

Shammai, House of

School of thought of Judaism founded by Shammai, a Jewish scholar of the first century, a halachic opponent of Hillel.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

234

Glossary of non-English terms

H . ovevei Z.ion

Lit. “lovers of Zion,” refers to organizations now considered the forerunners and foundation-builders of modern Zionism.

H . ozrei (m), H . ozrot (f) beteshuvah

Lit. “returning in repentance,” formerly secularized Jews returning to Orthodoxy.

H . umash

Pentateuch.

Ikveta demeshih.a Lit. “footsteps of the Messiah,” a term used to describe tribulations prior to the final redemption. Kaddish

Prayer said as part of the mourning rituals in Judaism.

Kallah

Lit “bride,” one of the minor tractates deals with engagement, marriage and cohabitation.

Karet

Lit. “cutting off,” death by the hands of heaven, not necessarily physical, “cutting off” of life by extinction of the soul and denial of a share in the world to come.

Kashrut

Jewish dietary laws.

Ketubot

Second tractate of Mishna Nashim, deals with the ketubah (Judaism’s prenuptial agreement), as well as topics such as virginity, and the obligations of a couple towards each other.

Kiddushin

Last tractate of Mishna Nashim deals with the initial stage of marriage, betrothal, as well as the laws of Jewish lineages.

klum umeum

Nothing at all.

Kollel

Institute for full-time, advanced study of the Talmud and rabbinic literature.

Ktuvim

Third and final section of the Hebrew bible, comprising 1–2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah.

Lag Baomer

Jewish holiday celebrated on the thirty-third day of the Counting of the Omer, the 49 days between Passover and Shavuot.

Lecha Dodi

Lit. “come, my beloved!” Jewish liturgical song recited Friday at dusk in welcoming Shabbat.

Lilith

Figure in Jewish mythology, who is generally thought to be in part derived from a class of female demons.

lo plug rabbanan A rabbinic rule stating that the sages made general decrees and did not exclude even improbable scenarios where the reason for the decree might not apply. Ma’amar

Lecture, article. Some times refers to a h.asidic discourse.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Glossary of non-English terms

235

Mah.zikei Hadat

Lit. “supporters of the law/religion,” name of an Orthodox organization.

Malkhut

Lit. “kingdom,” the tenth of the sephirot in the kabbalistic tree of life.

Mamash

Immediately and without delay, truly.

Mashpi’a

Lit. “source of influence,” a A term for a h.asidic rabbi who teaches texts and advises about the proper implementation of h.asidic ideas in individual life.

Maskhilim

Individuals identifying with the Jewish wing of the Enlightenment, the Haskhala.

Maz.ah

Unleavened bread.

Megillah

Lit. “scroll,” Tractate in Talmud deals with the laws of Purim.

Mekhilta

A halachic exegesis (Midrash) to the Book of Exodus.

Mez.udot

Lit. “fortresses,” commentary on Neviim and Ketuvim written by Rabbi David Altshuler (seventeenth century).

Midrash

Body of homiletic stories told by Jewish rabbinic sages to explicate passages in the Bible.

Midrash Rabbah an individual narrative or the entire genre of aggadic midrashim on the books of the Tanach. Mikveh (sing.), Mikvaot (plur.)

Baths used for ritual immersions in Judaism.

Mishnah

First major written redaction of the Jewish oral tradition.

Mitnagdim

Lit. “Opponents,” term refers to opponents to Hasidism

Mivz.a’im

Lit. “campaigns.” Ten initiatives calling H . abad h.asidim to promote among less affiliated Jews specific commandments.

Miz.vah (sing.), Miz.vot (plur.)

Lit. “commandment” refers to precepts and commandments as commanded by God.

Miz.vot ‘ase shehazman grama”

Positive time bound commandments. Women are exempt from this extensive group of commandments.

Mizrah.i movement

Religious movement within the Zionist Organization founded to promote religious values within the framework of Zionism.

Moed Katan

Lit. “little festival,” eleventh tractate of Mishna Moed, deals mainly with laws during the intermediate days of Pesach and Sukkot.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

236

Glossary of non-English terms

Mussar

Lit. “Ethics,” also the name of a movement among Eastern European Jews that promoted contemplative practices aimed to reinvigorate religious life.

Nasi

Prince or leader, in mishnaic Hebrew referred to the supreme leader of the nation.

Nedarim

Third tractate Mishna Nashim deals with various types of vows, often known as nedarim and their legal consequences.

Nesi hador

leader of the generation. A term used to refer to the leader of H . abad.

Nevi’im

Prophets.

Nikur

Lit “deveining,” kosher slaughtering involves removing certain forbidden veins and fats from cattle.

Old Yishuv

Jewish communities, with specific economic and social structure, which had lived in Eretz Yisrael (land of Israel) throughout the Ottoman period.

Ohel

Tent.

Pilpulim

Reinterpretation, argumentation and construction of analogies.

Pirkei Avot

Lit “chapters of the Fathers,” a compilation of the ethical teachings and maxims of the rabbis of the mishnaic period

Politeia

(Greek) proper organization of society, form of government.

Pshat

Methods of Jewish biblical exegesis used by Rabbis and Jewish bible scholars.

Purim

Jewish holiday commemorating the deliverance of the Jewish people in the ancient Persian Empire from destruction in the wake of a plot by Haman.

Qav (sing), qabim (plur.)

Small amount of food.

Rabbanit

Rebbetzin, Rabbi’s wife, a woman who teaches Jewish ritual to women.

Rebbe

Teacher, or mentor, Yiddish word derived from the Hebrew word “rabbi,” usually refers to a h.asidic master.

Rishonim

Lit. “first ones,” leading rabbis and decisors living during 1040–1400.

Safra and Sifri

Legal Midrash on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Glossary of non-English terms

237

Sanhedrin

Fourth tractate in Mishna Nezikin deals with the rules of court proceedings in the Sanhedrin (council or court), the death penalty, and other criminal matters.

Seder hishtalshelut

Lit. “Order of Development/Evolution,” refers in Kabbalah and h.asidic thought to the chain-like descent of Spiritual Worlds between God and Creation.

Sephirot

“emanations,” are the ten attributes/emanations in Kabbalah, through which The Infinite reveals himself and continuously creates both the physical realm and the chain of higher metaphysical realms.

Shabbat

First tractate in Mishna Moed, deals with laws relating to Shabbat and the activities forbidden on Shabbat.

Shakla vetarya

give-and-take of discussions in the Gemara.

Shali’ah. (m.), Sheluh.a (f.), Shluh.im (plur.)

Lit. “emissary,” member of H . abad sent out to promulgate Judaism and Habad in locations around the world.

Shamuti

A student of the house of Shammai.

Shas (shisha s’darim)

Lit. “six orders” of Mishna and Talmud.

Shechina

divine presence, inspiration, referring to the feminie attributes of the divine.

Shelih.ut

Lit. “outreach,” unique H . abad mission established primarily during the tenure of the seventh Rebbe.

Shmad

Forced conversion.

Shoh.et

Slaughterer, trained to perform ritual slaughter.

Shomer Yisrael

Guardian of Israel.

Shtetlekh

Yiddish for small towns with a large Jewish population in Middle and Eastern Europe.

Shulh.an Arukh

Lit. “set table,” code of Jewish Law.

Shut (she’elot ut’shuvot)

Lit. “questions and answers,” an assembly of rabbinical discussions on halachic questions brought forward by the general public.

Sotah (Mishna)

Fifth tractate of Mishna Nashim deals with the ritual of the sotah, a woman suspected of adultary.

Talit

Jewish prayer shawl.

Talit katan

Fringed garment traditionally worn either under or over one’s clothing by Jewish males.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

238

Glossary of non-English terms

Talmudei Torah

Elementary schools for boys.

Tannaim

Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in Mishnah approx. 10–220 CE.

Tefillin

Phylacteries, a set of small black leather boxes containing scrolls of parchment inscribed with verses from the Torah worn by observant Jews during weekday morning prayers.

Terumah

Lit. “gift” or “offering.”

Tiflut

A term that suggests Triviality. It was used to imply cognitive deficiencies or promiscuous behavior.

Tosefta

Lit. “additions,” compilation of the Jewish oral law from the period of the Mishnah.

Ulpena

Jewish high school for girls in the religious Zionist community.

Yeridat hadorot

Decline of the generations.

Yih.uda ila’a

Lit. “upper unity,” unity between God and man focusing on divine influence on man.

Yih.uda tata’a

Lit. “lower unity,” unity between God and man focusing on human actions and their influence on the divine.

Yerushalmi

Jerusalem Talmud.

Yeshiva

Lit. “sitting,” a Jewish educational institution that focuses on the study of traditional religious texts, primarily the Talmud and Torah study.

Yih.ud

Seclusion, laws forbidding a man and woman who are not related to be alone in a closed space.

Yirat shamayim

Lit. “fear of heaven,” where “heaven” is a euphemism for God.

Yishuv

Settlement.

Yoez.et Halacha

“Halachic advisor,” a title given to women who have studied family purity laws extensively as well as anatomy, physiology and reproductive biology.

Zav (m)., Zavah (f.)

Male and female with a genital discharge.

Zekhut

Merit.

Zevah.im

Lit. “sacrifices,” first tractate in Mishnah Kodashim, deals with the procedure of animal and bird offerings.

Z.iz.it

specially knotted ritual fringes sewn on four-cornered clothes.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Bibliography

Canonical rabbinic literature Mishnah, Albek ed., Tel Aviv: 1957. Tosefta, Liberman ed., Jerusalem: 1993. Sifre Dvarim, Finkelstein ed., Berlin: 1940. Yerushalmi, Venice: 1523. Talmud, Vilna: 1880.

Rabbinical writings, Rishonim (eleventh to sixteenth century) Bez.alel Ashkenazi of Cairo, Shitah Mekubetzet, Metzger ed., Jerusalem: 1997. Eli’ezer of Metz, Yereim, Shif ed., Vilna: 1896–1902. Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil, Sefer Miz.vot Katan, Satmar: 1935. Jacob b. Moses Moellin, Shut Maharil, Makhon Yerushalayim ed., Jerusalem: 1980. —— Shut Maharil Hah.adashot, Makhon Yerushalayim ed., Jerusalem: 1977. Judah ben Samuel, Sefer H . asidim, Margaliyot ed., Jerusalem: 1957. Moses b. Jacob of Coucy SeferMiz.vot Gadol, Makhon Yerushalayim ed., Jerusalem: 1993–2003. Shlomo ben Aderet, Shut Harashba, Makhon Yerushalayim ed., 2 vols., Jerusalem, 1996–98. Yeshaya ben-Elya DeTarny, Piskei Hariaz Yad Harav Hertzog ed., Jerualem: 1964–2012.

Rabbinical writings, ‘Ah.ronim’ (sixteenth century to present) Ashkenazi, M.S. Hilkhot Talmud Torah Mishuhan Arukh Admor Hazaken im He’arot Vez.iyunim, 6 vols, Kfar Habad: 1983. Archivolti, S. Ma’ayan Ganim, Venice, Italy: 1553. Assad, J. Shut Mhry”a, New York: 1965. Atiyah, J. Mesharet Moshe, Ashdod: 1998. Ayash, J. Leh.em Yehudah, Jerusalem: 1986. Azulai, H.J.D. Tov Ayin, Jerusalem: 1961. —— Yosef Omez., Livorno: 1798. —— Ptah. Enayim, Jerusalem: 1959. Bamberger, S. Zekher Simh.a, Frankfurt: 1925. Ben Aaron, I. Keren Ora, Jerusalem: 1960. Biliz.er, E. Yad Ephrayim, Petah. Tikvah: 1970.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

240

Bibliography

Blau, P.U. (ed.), Sefer Hamitzvot LehaRambam im Iturei Hamelekh – Bi’urei Harebbe Lesefer Hamitzvot, Jerusalem: 2006. Braysh, Y. Mishamnei Ha’arez., Lakewood, NJ: 1995. Ciechanowicz, Y. Torat Yeruh.am, 2 vols., New York: 1950. Eizenbakh, S.L. Be’er Yiz.h.ak, Jerusalem: 1911. Elyashiv, J.S. Kovez. Tshuvot, Jerusalem: 2000. —— He’arot – Masekhet Sotah, Jerusalem: 2000. Epstein, B. Makor Barukh, 3 vols., n.p: 1954. Feinstein, M. Igrot Moshe, 8 vols, New York, Jerusalem: 1959–96. —— Dibrot Moshe, 15 vols., New York: 1947–99. —— Kol Ram – Divrei Torah U-mussar, 3 vols, New York: 1980. —— Darash Moshe, 2 vols., Bnei Berak: 1988. Friedman, N.Z., Nez.er Mata’ai, Bnei Brak: 1957. Friedman, S.D. Sde Tzofim al Masechet Nazir Sotah, New York: 2001. Geshtetner, N. Lehorot Natan, 13 vols., Bnei Brak: 1973–83. Gestetner, S.Y. Torat Imekha, Monsey, NY: 1996. —— Torat Imekha – Mahadura Kama, New York: 1993. Goldberg, A.D. Avodat David, Jerusalem: 1995. Goldstein, M. Tikun Olam, Monkatch, Hungary: 1936. Gombo, E. Mei Be’er, 1st ed., Netanya: 1997. Greiniman, H.S. H . idushim Ubiurim – Nedarim, Nazir, Sotah, Bnei Brak: 2000. Gross, S.K. Masa Bnei Kehat, Jerusalem: 1982. ——, Shevet Hakehati, 2 vols., Jerusalem: 1987–2003. Hacohen, A.M. Yad Re’em, Tel Aviv: 1960. Hacohen, Y.M. Likutei Halakhot, 3 vols., Jerusalem: 2003. Hacohen, Z. Oz.ar Hamelekh, Jerusalem: 2000. Halberstam, J.J. Divrei Yaz.iv, 7 vols., Netanya: 1997–2004. Henkin, J. Bnei-Banim, 4 vols., Jerusalem: 1981–95. Hirsch, S.R. H . orev, Bnei Brak: 1965. —— Sidur Tefilot Yisrael, Jerusalem: 1992. Hirshenzon, H. Torat Hah.inukh Hayisraeli, Saiïni, Hungary: n.p., 1927. —— H . idushei Harah.ah Lemasekhet Horayot, 3 vols., Jerusalem: 1929. —— Elu Divrei Habrit, 3 vols., Jerusalem: 1926–28. —— Malki Bakodesh, 6 vols., St Louis, MO: 1919–28. Kaplan, A.S. Shalmei Nedarim, Bnei Brak: 2007. Kasel, D. Darchei David, Jerusalem: 1990. Klein, M. Mishne Halachot, 18 vols., New York: 1978–2012. Kook, A.Y. Igrot Haraya, 4 vols., 2nd ed., Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1962. —— Ma’amarei Haraya, Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1984. —— Mitzvot Haraya, (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1985). Landau, M.M. Mekiz. Nirdamim, (Pyoterkov: 1904). Ze’ev Leiter, Beit David, Jerusalem: 2000. Lev, Y. Divrey Yirmiyahu, (Jerusalem: 1974). Maharshak, S.D. Hegyonei Shemuel, St. Louis MO: 1934. Markus, Y.S. Minh.at Ya’akov, (New York: 1997). Nathanson, J.S. Sho’el U’meishiv, 4th ed., New York 1954. Posek,H. Hilel Omer (Tel Aviv: 1957). Rosental, H.S. A’ira Shah.ar, (Jerusalem 2001). Rotshild, S. Peyrot Hate’enah, (Bnei Brak: 2001).

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Bibliography

241

Rubin, A. Neharot Eytan, 2 vols., Reh.ovot: 1999–2002. Schneerson, M.M. Hitva’aduyot, 50 vols., 2nd ed., New York: 1993–95. —— Likutei Sih.ot, 36 vols.., 2nd ed., New York, 1989–95. —— Hiddushim U-bi’urim La-Shas, 2 vols., New York: 1979. —— Igrot Kodesh, 30 vols., 1987–2009. —— Reshimot, 5 vols., New York: 2000. Shakh, E.M. Avi Ezri, 4 vols., Bnei Brak: 1993. Shzransky, M. Or Hameir: Shu”t Ubeyrurim Beinyan Limud Hatorah Lenashim, Tel Aviv: 1941. Soloveitchik, J.B. Community, Covenant and Commitment – Selected Letters and Communications, Nathaniel Helfgot ed., Jersey City, N.J.: Ktav Publishing House, 2006. Soloveitchik, J.B. Halakhic Man, Lawrence Kaplan trans., Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society 1979. Soloveitchik, J.D. Beit Halevi, Vilna: 1863. Soloveichik, Z. H . idushei Hagryz al Harambam, Jerusalem, 1998. Soroz.kin, Z. Hade’ah Vehadibur, 3 vols.., Warsaw, 1937. —— Moznayim Lamishpat, Jerusalem: 1965. Stalevitch, M. Mbeit-Meir, 4 vols., Warsaw and Jerusalem: 1913–47. Tavyomi, T.Y. Erez. Tovah, Jerusalem: 1947. —— Tal Leyisrael, 3rd ed., Bnei Brak: 2006. Teitelbaum, Y. Vayoel Moshe, 2 vols., NewYork: 1974. —— H . idushey Torah, New York: 1977. —— Divrey Yoel, 3 vols., New York: 1982. —— Divrei Yoel al Hatorah, 8 vols., New York: 1971–81. Valdenberg, E. Z.iz. Eli’ezer, 22 vols., Jerusalem 1945–98. —— Devar Eli’ezer, Jerusalem: 1935. —— Hilkhot Medina’h, 3 vols., Jerusalem: 1952–55. —— Shevitat Hayam, Jerusalem: 1955. Velner, M.D. H . emdat Z.vi, 5 vols., Ashkelon: 1973–85. Volkin, A. Zkan Aharon, 2 vols.., New York: 1958. —— Metzah. Aharon, 2nd ed., Piyoterkov: 1908. Vozner, S. Shevet Halevi, 3rd ed., 11 vols., Bnei Brak: 2002–8. Weiss, H . . Vaya’an David, 3 vols., Jerusalmen: 1993–96. Wolf, J.A. Hatkufa Ube’ayoteha – Iyunim, Bnei Brak: 1965. —— Deot Umidot, Bnei Brak: 1985. Zilber, B. Az Nedaberu, 14 vols., Bnei Brak: 1967–1987.

Journals and rabbinical articles Admanit, A. “Ma’amad Haishah Bahalacha Ubh.evratenu,” in Betokh Hazerem Venegdo, I. Asher ed., Tel Aviv: Religious Kibutz Press 1977, 99–106. —— “Al Nith.amek Min Haberur,” Amudim 128 (1957), 13–14. Ah.ituv, J. “Ha’ishah Umiz.vat Talmud Torah,” Amudim 377 (1976), 187–89. Amital, J. “Ba’ayot Yesod Beh.inukh Haishah,” in Ha’ishah Veh.inukha, B.Z.. Rosenfeld ed., Kfar-Saba: Emuna 1980, 165–69. Arendt, M. “Mikhtav Tguva,” Shma’atin 32 (1972), 31. Ariel, J. “Ha’ishah Baidan Hamoderni Le’or Hahalacha,” Telalei Orot 13 (2007), 123–47.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

242

Bibliography

—— “Beit Hamidrash Hanashi,” Shirat Alamot, Y. Arzoni ed., Kiryat Arba: Makhon Lerabanei Yishuvim, 2004, 205–19. Aviner, E. “Limud Gmara Lebanim Velimud Gmara Lebanot,” Shirat Alamot, Y. Arzoni ed., Kiryat Arba: Makhon Lerabanei Yishuvim, 2004, 197–204. Bamberger, Z. “Halacha Lema’aseh: She’elah Beinyan Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Oz.ar Hah.ayyim 4 (1928), 115–16. Bar-Shaul, E. “Leh.inukha shel Habat Bamekorot,” in Hah.inukh Hadati shel Habat, n.p.: n.p., 1964, 5–13. Ben-Sarim, S. “Al Lomdot Torah Umelamdehen,” Shma’atin 2 (1964), 19–21. Bolah, M. “Hora’at Torah Shebe’al-Pe,” Alonim 38 (1949), 45–49. Borovski, D. “Limud Mishnah Bebatei Sefer Lebanot,” Bisde Hemed 4 (1961), 399–401. Cherlow, Y. “Talmud Torah shel Nashim – Sikuyim Vesikunim,” Lihiyot Isha Yehudiah, vol. 1, M. Shilo ed., Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2001, 67–72. Cohen, Y. “Hamah.loket Bein Harabanim Kook Veuziel Zez.al al Matan Zkhut Bh.ira Lenashim,” Hapnina, D. Rapel ed., Jerusalem: Bnei H . emed, 1989, 52–69. Ehrenreich, H. “Limud Torah Lenashim,” Oz.ar Hah.ayyim 5 (1929), 15–18. Elba, A. “Hora’at Mishnah Lebanot Bebeit-Hasefer Hayesodi,” Shma’atin 172–73 (2008), 220–34. Geshtetner, S.Y., “Beinyan Isur Limud Torah Lenashim Mepi Nashim,” Pinat Yikrat 10 (1996), 23. Firer, B.Z. “Beinyan Limud Torah Lebanot,” No’am 3 (1960), 131–34. Frankel-Goldschmidt, H . . “Hora’at Talmud Lebanot,” Shma’atin 31 (1972), 60–61. Friedman, N.Z. “Miz.vat Limud Torah Shebeal-Pe Lenashim Keyz.ad?” Shma’atin 4 (1965), 45–47. Friedman, S. “Talmud Torah Lenashim Beyamenu,” in Yahadut Beh.evrat Yamenu: Emdat Hayahadut Le’erkhei Hah.evrah Veimutah im Hamez.iut Hah.evratit, Jerusalem: The Education and Culture Ministry, 1980, 53–66. Ginzburg, Y.S. “Limud Divrei Elokim Hayim Lenashim,” Yagdil Torah 5 (1982), 2040–42. Goren, S. “Seder Nashim,” Th.umin 25 (2005), 378–80. Grass, S. “Bdin Limud Hatorah Lenashim,” Or Israel 8 (1997), 27. Guttel, N. “Talmud Torah Lenashim: Halacha Behishtalsheluta Ubehithavutah,” in Tal Leisrael, Michael Shtigliz. ed., Merkaz Shapira: n.p., 2005, 41–64. Halivni, E.B. “Nashim Vetalmud Torah,” Hadarom 61 (1992), 25–34. Halperin, A. “Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Orot Ez.ion 22–23 (1993), 275–304. Helinger, M. “Hamelamed et Bito Torah Melamdah Tiflut – Haumnam?,” Shma’atin 170 (2005), 110–24. Henkin, J. “Feminism, Halacha Velimud Torah,” in Lihiyot Ishah Yehudiah, M. Shilo ed., Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2001, 73–76. Kleman, Z. “Hora’at Torah Shbe’al-Pe Umah.shevet Yisrael Lebanot,” Shma’atin 64 (1981), 23–26. Kroyz, M. Techelet Mordecai al Seder Taharot, Jerusalem: 1904. Lange, R.I.A. “Mikhtav Tguva,” Shma’atin 32 (1972), 32. Lichtenstein, A. “Ba’ayot Yesod Beh.inukha shel Haishah,” in: Haishah Veh.inukha, B.Z. Rosenfeld ed., Kfar-Saba: Emuna, 1980, 157–59. “Lo Nishtanu Haitim,” Pinat Yikrat 13 (1998), 87–89. Lubiz., R. “Mikhtav Lama’arekhet,” Amudim 11 (1997), 322–26. Min-Hahar, S. “Mikhtav Tguva,” Shma’atin 32 (1972), 29. Moriel, J “Erkhei H . emed . inukh Utkhanei Limud Bah.inukh Hadati Lebanot,” Bisde H 12 (1969), 17.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Bibliography

243

Mozeson, M.A. “H . inukh Banot (Im Horaot R. Soloveitchik),” Hadarom 66–67 (1998), 63–66. Navon, H . . “Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Teh.umin 28 (2008), 248–57. Neriya, M.Z. “H . inukhan shel Bnot Haulpanot,” Shma’atin (1968), 68. Nir, H. “Limud Torah Lenashim,” Yesha Yemino 51 (1997), 64–84. Peterkofski, M. “Iyun Besugiyat Nashim Vetalmud Torah – Issur? Reshut? Miz.va? H . ova?” in: Me’emunah Lema’aseh – Shiv’im Shana Ltnuaat Emunah, L. Rosenberg-Friedman ed., Jerusalem: Emuna, 2006, 89–129. Pevzner, A.B. “Be’inyan Limud Torah Shebe’al-pe Lenashim,” in Karnot Tzadik, M. La’ufer ed., New York: Kehot, 1982, 761–66. Pollack, M. “Shu”t Be’inyan Birkhat Erusin Vetalmud Torah Lenashim,” Yeshurun 2 (1997), 214–18. Re’im, I. “Mikhtav Tguva,” Shma’atin 32 (1972), 33. Reiniz., J.K. “Tguva,” Shma’atin 3 (1964), 49–52. Rosenberg, S.G. “Talmud Torah Ve’erkho – Talmud Torah Lenashim Beshitat Harambam,” Be’er Mayim H . ayyim, Y. Shaviv ed., Kerem Beyavne: Kerem Beyavne Yeshiva, 1999, 123–47. —— “Bein shlemut Ishit Letiyug H . evrati: Talmud Torah Lenashim Leshitat Harambam,” in Shnei Hameorot – Hashivyon Bamishpah.ah Mimabat Yehudi H . adash, Z. Maor ed., Efrata: Siah. Yitzh.ak Yeshiva, 2007, 37–61. —— “Ro’im et Hakolot – Lamdanut Yeshivatit Vekol Nashi Belimud Torah,” Masekhet 5 (2006), 45–68. —— “Ro’im et Hakolot – Lamdanut Yeshivatit Vekol Nashi Belimud Torah,” in Shnei Hameorot – Hashivyon Bamishpah.ah Mimabat Yehudi H . adash, Z. Maor ed., Efrata: Siah. Yitzh.ak Yeshiva, 2007, 62–84. —— “Emuna Velashon lfi Ha’admor Hazaken Meh.abad Meperspektivat Halashon shel Vitginstein,” in Al Haemunah – Iyunim Bemusag Haemuna Vtoldotav Bahagut Hayehudit, M. Halbertal et al. eds., Jerusalem: Keter, 2005, 365–87. Shakdiel, P. “Leshe’elat Limud Hayahadut Lebanot Bebeit-Sefer Hatikhon Hadati,” De’ot 8 (1959), 15. Shapira, A. “Tshuva Hilchatit-Ra’ayonit Leba’ayot Beh.inukh Haishah” in Haishah Veh.inukha, Ben-Z.ion Rosenfeld ed., Kfar-Saba: Emuna, 1980, 165–69. Shapira, Amnon. “Ma’amad Haishah Beh.evrah Me’orevet Bat Zmanenu – Tmurot alpi Hahalakha,” Ha’ishah Bimkorot Hayahadut, Jerusalem: The Education and Culture Ministry, 1983, 39–51. Shmidman, Y. “H . inukh Habanos Di Refu’a!,” Hamesila, January 1937, 18–20. —— “H . inukh Habanos Di Refu’a!,” Hamesila, February 1937, 16–18. Shzransky, M. “Berurim Bdavr Limud Torah Lenashim,” Sefer Hayovel Ha’esrim Veh.amesh Shel Beyet Hasefer Vehaseminar Lemorot Beit Ya’akov Betel-Aviv, Tel Aviv: n.p., 1961, 103–9. Spitz, A. “Beinyan Limud Torah Lenashim,” Pinat Yikrat 14 (1997), 85. Teitelbaum, M. “Drasha Begodel Maalat H . inukh Bnot Yisrael,” Pinat Yikrat 13 (1998), 7–9. Unger, Y. “Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Yesha Yemino 51 (1997), 90–112. Vayzer, S. “Talmud Torah – Ha’etgar Bifnei Bat Yisrael,” Shma’atin 45 (1976), 56–57. Veil, I. “Lema’an Yilmad Le’yirah et Hashem,” Amudim 210 (1964), 38. Wahrman, S. “Miz.vat Talmud Torah Benashim,” Hadarom 46 (1978), 55–62. Weinberger, M. “Teaching Torah to Women,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 9 (1985), 19–52.

244

Bibliography

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Winkler, M. “Limud Torah Lenashim,” Otzar Hah.ayyim 5 (1929), 14–15. Yismah., M. “Hirhurim Al Megamot Udrakhim Behora’at Torah Shbe’al-Pe Lebanot,” Shma’atin 69 (1982), 26–32. Yiz.h.aki, D. “Be’inyan Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Or Leyisrael (1998), 203–5. Zalkin, M. “Iris Porush Nashim Korot remarks on her conclusions and her historical description,” Gal-Ed 19 (2004), 78–87. Zohar, N. “Hakol h.ayavin Belimud Torah: Ma’amadan shel Nashim Kmh.uyavot Medeorayta Betalmud Torah Ubehidabkut Behashem,” in Lihiyot Ishah Yehudiyah, vol. 4, T. Cohen ed., Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2007, 227–82.

Press and Fiction Agnon, S.Y. Tehilla, and other Israeli Tales, trans. I.M. Lask, London and New York: Ram’s Horn books, 1956. Bashevis Singer, I. The collected Stories of Isaac Bashevis Singer, New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux 1981. Eid, D. “Harebbi Milubavitch Be’psak’ Umivtza Hadash: Z.arikh Lelamed Nashim Gemara im Shakla Vetarya,” Yated Neeman, June 18, 1943. Manekin, R. “Bita shel Tehilah U’Michilenah Aratin,” Ha’aretz Musaf Tarbut Vesafrut, June 27, 2003, 1. Sihat Ha-shavu’a 179, Parshat Naso, Sivan 5750, June 1, 1990, 1. Steinberg, A. “Yashan Bkli H . adash,” Makor Rishon, April 8, 2007. Vaserman, A. “Ma’ase Beplonit,” Haz.ofe, Dec 8, 2006, Supplement, 14–15. Yavrov, Z. “H . ovat Ha’ishah Lihiyot Ezer Leba’ala Ulebanehah Belimud Hatorah,” Yated Ne’eman, Musaf 10 Kislev 1990, 10–11.

Secondary literature Adar, Z. Hah.inukh Hayehudi Beyisrael Ubearz.ot Habrit, Tel Aviv: Gome, 1970. Adler, E. In Her Hands: The Education of Jewish Girls in Tsarist Russia, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 2010. —— “Women’s Education in the Russian Jewish Press,” Polin 18 (2006), 121–32. Ah.ituv, R. “Yeshu’ah Belimud Torah: Hate’ologya shel Limud Torah Bamishnah U’batalmud,” in Al Hatshuvah Ve’al Hageulah – Minh.at Shai Lebinyamin Gross, D. Shwartz et al. eds., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2008, 135–59. Alexandrov, L. “Toldot Hagimnasyot Haivriyot Bekovna Bein Shtei Milh.amot Haolam 1918–40,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 1983. Alon, B.Z. “H . ayey Harav; The Life of the Rabbi,” in Beit Hilel, E. Tobenhoyz ed., Tel Aviv: n.p., 1951, 7. Alfasi, I. “Firer, Ben-Tzion,” in Encycopedia shel Haz.iyonut Hadatit, vol.6, I. Rafael et al. eds, Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 2000, 719–21. Ashkenazi, S. Dor Dor Uminhagav: Orh.ot Zemanim Veiyunim Beyisrael, Tel Aviv: n.p., 1987. Avron, D. H . inukh Bema’avako – Lidmuto shel Hah.inukh Hayehudi Hadati-Leumi Bepolin Bein Shtei Milh.amot Haolam, Jerusalem: Alfa, 1988. Backon, G. “Da’at Torah Veh.evley Mashiah.,” Tarbitz 52 (1983), 84–98. Barel, E. “Al Patriarkhiyah Vekolot Nashiyim: Mabat Bikorti al Limud Torah Lenashim Btfisat Harav Shagar,” Akadamot 20 (2008), 39–53. Bar-Ilan, M. Mivoloz’in ’ad Yerushalayim, 2 vol, 2nd ed., Tel Aviv: n.p., 1971.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Bibliography

245

Barkai, A. “German Jewish Migrations in the Nineteenth Century 1830–1910,” Leo Beck Institute Year Book 30 (1985), 301–18. Baum, C. “What Made Yetta Work? The Economic Role of Eastern European Jewish Women in the Family,” Response: A Contemporary Jewish Review 18 (1973), 8–32. Baumel Joseph, N. “Mechitza: Halachic Decisions and Political Consequences,” in Daughters of the King – Women and the Synagogue, S. Grossman and R. Haut eds., Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1992, 117–34. —— “Separate Spheres: Women in the Responsa of Rabbi Moses Feinstein,” unpub. PhD diss., Concordia University, Montreal 1995. —— “Jewish Education for Women: Rabbi Feinstein’s Map of America,” American Jewish History, vol 83:2 (1995), 205–22. —— “Hair Distractions,” in Jewish Legal Writings by Women, H . . Safrai and M. Halpern, eds, Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 1998, 9–22. Baumgarten, E. Mothers and Children: Jewish Family Life in Medieval Europe: Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Ben Ami, M. “Hakesher bein Muda’ut Az.mit al-pi Hatanya levein Zehut Ha’ani Vesignonot Hitmodedut Bemaz.avei Lahaz. Bekerev Mitbagrot Meh.abad umizeramim H . aredi’yim Ah.erim,” unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2006. Ben-H . aim, A. Ish Hahashkafa – Haideologya Hah.aredit al-pi Harav Shakh, Jerusalem: Mozaika, 2004. Benayaho, M. Rabi H . ayyim Yosef David Azulai, Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1959. Benish, P. Carry Me in Your Heart: The Life and Legacy of Sarah Schenirer, Jerusalem: Feldheim, 2003. Bergman, D. “Shloshesre Sonatim Lerabi Shmuel Archivolti,” Italya 7 (1988), 29–65. Bergman, A. Maran Harav Shakh, Bney Brak: n.p., 2006. Blidstein, G. Samkhut Umeri Behilkhot Harambam: Perush Nirh.av Lehilkhot Mamrim 1–4, Tel Aviv: Hakibuz. Hameuh.ad, 2002, 27–30. Bonfil, R. Bemarah Ksufa: H . ayey Hayehudim Beitalyah Biymei Harenesanse, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar center, 1994. Braver, N. “Yisudah shel Yeshivat Tomkhei Temimim Vehashpa’ata al Tenu’at H . abad,” in Yeshivot Ubattei Midrashot, I. Etkes ed., Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2007, 357–68. Breuer, M. Eda Vedyokana: Ortodoxya Yehudit Baraykh Hagermani 1871–1918, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1990. Bromberg, A. Migdoley Hatorah Vehah.asidut, vol. 17, Jerusalem: Hamachon Leh.asidut, 1960. Brown, B. “Erekh Talmud Torah Bemishnat Hah.afez. H . ayyim Upsikato Be’inyan Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Dinei Yisrael 24 (2007), 79–118. —— H . azon Ish: Haposek, Hama’amin Umanhig Hamahapecha Hah.aredit, Jerusalem: Magness, 2011. —— “Mehitbadlut Politit Lehitbaz.rut Tarbutit—Hah.azon Ish Ukviat Darkha shel Hayahadut Hah.aredit Be’erez. Yisrael (1933–54),” in Shnei Every Hagesher: Dat Umedinah Breshit Darkha shel Yisrael, Z.. Z.ameret and M. Bar-On eds, Jerusalem: Yad Yiz.h.ak Ben Z.vi, 2002, 364–413. —— “Harav Shakh: Ha’araz.at Haruh., Bikoret Haleumiyut Vehakhraot Politiyot Bimdinat Yisrael,” in Dat Uleumiyut Beyisrael Vehamizrah. Hatikhon, N. Horowitz ed., Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2003, 278–342.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

246

Bibliography

—— “Raz.on Amiti O Yez.er Hara? Tfisat Hah.erut shel Shnei Hugim H . aredim,” Hagut Bah.inukh Hayehudi 1 (1999), 97–125. Brown, I. “Harav H . aim Metsanz: Darchei Psikato al Reka Olamo Hara’ayoni Ve’etgarei Zmano,” upub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 1994. —— “Tomat Hanidah Uma’amad Haishah: Psikato shel Hadmor Metsanz-Klausenberg Kemikre Mivh.an,” Da’at 61 (2007), 113–33. —— “Talmud Torah Lenashim Batfisa Haortodoxit Bame’ah Haesrim,” unpub. MA thesis, Hebrew University in Jerusalem: 1997. Brumberg, S. “The Education of Jewish, Protestant and Catholic Childern in MidNineteenth-Century New York City,” The American Jewish Archives 61 (2009), 10–41. Caplan, K. “‘Yesh Rikavon Amiti Bah.evrah Shlanu Vez.arich Lehakir et Haemet’: Bikoret Az.mit Bah.evrah Hah.aredit Beyisrael,” in Miutim Zarim Shonim: Kvuz.ot Shulayim Bahistoryah, S. Wellkov ed., Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 2001, 299–330. Chertok, S. “Hayah.as Lamodernah Beparshanuto shel Harash”r Hirsh Latorah,” unpub. PhD diss., Ben Gurion University, 2005. Chinitz, J. “Reb Moshe and the Conservatives,” Conservative Judaism 41:3 (1989), 5–15. Cohen, I.J. H . akhmei Transylvania, 2 vols., Jerusalem: 1989. Cohen, T. Ah.at Ahuvah Veah.at Snuah: Bein Mez.iut Ledimyon Bete’urei Haishah Hayehudiah Besifrut Hahaskalah, Jerusalem: Magness, 2002. —— “Manhigut Datit Nashit: Haorthodoxya Hamodernit Beyisrael Kmikre Mivh.an,” Tarbut Demokratit 10 (2006), 251–96. Cohen, Y. Harav Meir Simh.a HaCohen (Or Same’ah) Medvinsk Umishnato HahilchatitMishpatit, unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2005. Davidman, L. and Stocks, J. “Varieties of Fundamentalist Experience: Lubavitch Hasidic and Fundamentalist Christian Approaches” in New World Hasidim – Ethnographic Studies of Hasidic Jews in America, J.S. Belcove-Shalin ed., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995) 107–33. Daytch, A. Boz.ina Kadisha, 2 vols, Brooklyn: n.p., 2000. Dekel, H . . “H . inukh Dati Bein Masortiyut Lemodernah,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 1996. Deutsch, N. The Maiden of Ludmir: A Jewish Holy Woman and Her World, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003. Dineri, Y. “Minhagei Tumat Hanida – Mekoram Vehishtalshelutam,” Tarbitz 49 (1980), 302–24. —— “H . ilul Hakodesh al-yedei Nida Utumat Ezra,” Te’eudah 3 (1983), 17–37. Di Segni, D.G. “Le Donne e lo studio della Torá: uno scambio epistolare fra Dina e Rabbi Samuele Archivolti nell’Italia del Rinascimento,” in Minchat Yehuda: Saggi sull’Ebraismo Italiano in Memoria di Yehuda nello Pavoncello, A. Piatelli et al. eds., Rome, Italy: Unione delle Communità Ebraiche Italiane, 2001, 151–76. Duschinsky, C. “May a Woman Act as Shoheteth?,” Orient and Occident, B. Schindler et al. eds, London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1936, 96–106. Edrei, A. “Divine Spirit and Physical Power: Rabbi Shlomo Goren and the Military Ethic of the Israel Defense Forces,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 7 (2006), 255–97. Elon, M. Hamishpat Haivri, 4 vols., Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973. Elior, R. “The Lubavitch Messianic Resurgence: The Historical and Mystical Background 1939–45,” in Toward the Millennium: Messianic Expectations from the Bible to Waco, P. Schafer and M. Cohen eds., Leiden: Brill, 1998, 383–408. Ellenson, D. and Ben-Naim, E. “Women and the Study of Torah: A Responsum by Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin of Jerusalem,” Nashim 4 (2001), 119–39.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Bibliography

247

—— “German Orthodox Rabbinical Writings on the Jewish Textual Education of Women: The Views of Rabbi Samson Rephael Hirsh and Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer,” in Gender and Jewish History, M. Kaplan and D. Dash Moore eds, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press 2011, 158–69. El-Or, T. Educated And Ignorant: Ultraorthodox Jewish Women And Their World, H . aim Watzman, trans., Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1994. —— Next Year I Will Know More: Literacy And Identity among Young Women in Israel, H . aim Watzman, trans., Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2002. Elroi, G. “Hasah.ar Benashim Bah.evrah Hayehudit Bereshit Hame’ah Haesrim Vehishtakfuto Be’Emek Habakha’ shel Mendele Mokher Sforim,” Bikoret Uparshanut 40 (2008), 37–59. Faur, Y. Iyunim Bemishnat Harambam, Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1978. Farber, S. An American Orthodox Dreamer, New Hampshire and Hanover: University Press of New England, 2003. Feiner, S. “Haishah Hayehudiah Hamodernit: Mikre Mivh.an Beyah.asei Haskala Umoderna,” Z.ion 58 (1993), 499–53. —— “Programot H . evratiyot Ve’ide’alim H . evratiyim Bebeit Hasefer ‘H . inukh Ne’arim’ Beberlin 1778–1825,” in H . inukh Vehistoryah—Heksherim Tarbutiyim, E. Etkes and R. Feldh.ai eds, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1999, 247–48. —— The Jewish Enlightenment, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Ferziger, A. Exclusion and Hierarchy Orthodoxy, Nonobservance, and the Emergence of Modern Jewish Identity, Philadelphia: Pensylvenia University Press, 2005. Finkelman, S. Reb Moshe: The Life and Ideals of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, New York: Mesorah Publications, 1986. Finkelstein, B. “Me’afyenei Psika shel Harav Moshe Feinstein Le’or Psakav Beshe’elot Legabey Piryon, Meni’at Herayon Vehapalah,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2007. Fishbane, S. “A Response to the Change of the Modern Era as Reflected in the Writings of Rabbi Jehiel Michael Halevi Epstein,” in Essays in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society, vol. 2, S. Fishbane ed., Montreal: Dept. of Religion, Concordia University, 1992, 96–109. —— “In Any Case There Are No Sinful Thoughts: The Role And Status Of Women In Jewish Law As Expressed in The Arukh Hashulhan,” Judaism 42 (1993), 492–503. Fisher, E. “Shikulim Erkhiyim Bepsika Beinyan Talmud Torah Lenashim,” in Lihiyot Ishah Yehudiah, vol. 1, M. Shilo ed., Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2001, 95–105. Fisher,M. “H . inukh Habat Beashkenaz Bame’ot 12–14,” Mikhlol 7 (1994), 5–40. Fisher, N. “Hishtatfut Nashim Badiyun Hatalmudi,” Hagut 7 (2006), 101–26. Freedman, S. Rabbi Shlomo Goren Torah Sage and General, Jerusalem: Urim Publications, 2006. Freeze, C. Jewish Marriage and Divorce in Imperial Russia, Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 2002. Freeze, C. and Hyman, P. “Introduction: A Historiographical Survey,” Polin 18 (2006), 3–24. Friedman, M. H . evra Vedat: Haortodoxyah Halo-Tziyonit Be’eretz-Yisrael 1918–1936, Jerusalem: Yad Yitzh.ak Ben-Tzvi, 1978. —— Hah.evra Hah.aredit – Mekorot, Megamot, Tahalikhim, Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 1991. —— “Haishah Hah.aredit,” in Eshnav Leh.ayehen shel Nashim Beh.avarot Yehudiyot, Yael Atzmon ed., Jerusalem, Zalman Shazar, 1995, 273–90.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

248

Bibliography

Fuchs, A. Ha’admor Mesatmar, Jerusalem: n.p., 1980. Fuchs, I. “Talmud Torah Lenashim Beitalyah Biymei Habeynayim Ubereshit Ha’et Hah.adashah: Shlosha Diyunum Hilchatiyim,” Masekhet 8 (2009), 29–49. —— “Book Review on Tamar El-Or’s Next Year I Will Know More: Literacy and Identity among Young Women in Israel,” Women in Judaism 7:1 (2010). —— “Kol Mishelah Velimud Torah: Harav Shimon Rozenberg Vefeminism Tarbuti,” in: Iyunim Bitkumat Israel: Migdar Beyisrael, M. Shilo and G. Katz eds., Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University Press, 2010, 771–89. —— “Sephardic Halacha? The Attitude of Sephardic Decisors to Women’s Torah Study: A Test Case,” Jewish Law Association Studies Journal 20 (2010), 43–74. —— “Women’s Testimony in Jewish Law: Between Law and History,” Hebrew Union College Annual 82 (2012), in press. Fund, J. Perud O Hishtatfut – Agudat Yisrael Mul Haz.iyonut Umedinat Yisrael, Jerusalem: Magness, 1999. Galerter, M. Hagimnasyah Haivrit Tarbut Berubena, Jerusalem: Alfa, 1973. Gelbman, S. Moshiaan shel Yisrael, 5 vols, New York: n.p., 1988. Gertner, H. “‘Maz.ahs Mashine:’ Hapulmus Hahilkhati Kekli Lehagdarat Zehut Ortodoxit,” in Ortodoxya Yehudit: hebet.im h.adashim, Y. S´almon, A. Ravitski and A. Ferziger eds, Jerusalem: Magness, 2006, 396–425. Gershuni, A.E. (ed.), Migeva’ot Ashurenu – Leket Sih.ot Umikhtavei Harebbe Nesi Doreinu Leneshei Ubenot H . abad, Jerusalem: Kehot, 1987. Gil-Bayz, A. “Shikulei Idiologyah Vehalachah Beheter Mekhirah Ubeimuz.o al-yedei Keren Kayemet Leyisrael Umedinat Yisrael,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University: 2006. Gilligan, C. In a Different Voice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Glick, S. Hah.inukh Bere’i Hah.ok Vehahalacha, Jerusalem: The Schechter Institute 1999. Gonen, A. Mehayeshivah La’avodah, Jerusalem: Makhon Floreshimer, 2001. Gordin, H. “Mekorot Hasamkhut shel Hahalacha: Iyun Bemishnato Hahilchatit shel Harav Moshe Feinstein,” Dinei Israel 25 (2008), 1–39. Greenbaum, A. “H . eder Habanot Ubanot Beh.eder Habanim Bemizrah. Eyropah Lifnei Milh.emet Haolam Harishona,” in H . inukh Vehistoryah—Heksherim Tarbutiyim Upolitiyim, I. Etkes and R. Feldh.ai eds. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1999, 297–303. Greenberg, G. “Redemption after the Holocaust According to Mahane Israel-Lubavitch 1940–45,” Modern Judaism 12, 1 (1992), 61–84. Greisman, N. Through the Eyes of a Woman – A Chassidic Perspective on Living Torah, Jerusalem: Machon Chaya Mushka, 1998. Grossman, A. Pious And Rebellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe, Jonathan Chipman, trans., Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2004. —— “Haisha Bemishnato shel Menah.em Me’iri,” Z.ion 63 (2002), 253–91. Halivni, E.B. Bein Haish Laisha: Havh.anot Bein Gvarim Lenahsim Behalacha, Jerusalem: Shay Press, 2007. —— “Nashim Vetalmud Torah,” Hadarom 61 (1992), 25–34. Halperin, M. “Al Da’ato shel Hagr”m Feinstein ZT”L Besugiyat Hamavet Hamoh.i,” Assia 12 (1990), 5–17. Halpern, M. and H . . Safrai (eds), Jewish Legal Writings by Women, New York: Urim Publications, 1998. Handelman, S. “Women and the Study of Torah in the Thought of the Lubavitcher Rebbe,” in Jewish Legal Writings by Women, M. Halpern and H . . Safrai eds., Jerusalem: Urim, 1999, 143–78.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Bibliography

249

Harvey, W.Z. “The Obligation of Talmud on Women According to Maimonides,” Tradition 19:2 (1981), 122–30. Hauptman, J. “A New View of Women and Torah Study in the Talmudic Period,” JSIJ 9 (2012) 249–92. Heiman, A. Toldot Tanaim Veamoraim, 3 vols., London: 1910. Hellinger, M. “Talmud Torah Lenashim Leor Hamekorot,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 1994. Henkin, E. “Ta’alumat Ma’ase Debruriah,” Akadamot 21 (2008), 140–59. Hollander, A. “Dyokano Hahilkhati shel Harav Shlomo Goren: Iyunim Beshikulei Hapsika Vedarchei Habisus Bema’amarav hahilkhatiyim,” unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2011. Horowitz, B. Jewish Philanthropy and Enlightenment in late-Tsarist Russia, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2009. Horowitz, E. Milh.emet Hatarbut, H . ebron: Me’emek H . evron, 2007. Hyman, P. Gender And Assimilation In Modern Jewish History: The Rules And Presentation Of Women, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1995. ——, Haishah Hayehudiyah Besvakh Hakidmah – Mekomah Veyiz.uga Ba’et Hah.adashah, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1997. Ilan, T. “Eshnav Lereshut Harabim – Nashim Yehudiyot Biymei Bayit Sheni,” Eshnav Leh.ayehen shel Nashim Beh.vrot Yehudiyot, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1995, 47–61. Ish Haeshkolot – Sefer Zikharon Lez.vi Binyamin Wolf, Bnei Brak: n.p., 2006. Kanarfogel, E. Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1992. Kaplan, L. “Da’at Torah – Tfisa Modernit shel Hasamkhut Hahilchatit,” in Bein samkhut Leotonomyah Bemasoret Yisrael, A. Sagi and Z. Safrai eds., Tel Aviv: Hakibuz. Hameuh.ad, 1997; 105–245. ——, “The Multi-Faceted Legacy of the Rav,” BDD 7 (1998), 51–85. Karlinski, H. Harishon Leshoshelet Brisk, Jerusalem: Mekhon Yerushalayim, 1984. Kaufman, D. “Engendering Orthodoxy,” in New World Hasidim – Ethnographic Studies of Hasidic Jews in America, J. S. Belcove-Shalin ed., Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995, 135–60. Kehat, H. “Ma’amad Hanashim Velimud Hatorah Bah.evrah Haortodoxit,” Akdamot 7 (1991), 123–35. Kelly, J. “Did Women Have a Renaissance?” in Women History and Theory, Joan Kelly ed., Chicago, IN: University of Chicago Press, 1984, 19–50. Klapper, M. Jewish Girls Coming of Age in America 1860–1920, New York: New York University Press, 2005. Koren-Loeb,Tz. Haga’on Harav Hilel Posek. (1881–1953): H . ayav Ufo’olo, Ramat Gan: n.p., 2011. Kranzler, G. Williamsburg: A Jewish Community in Transition, New York: Feldheim, 1961. —— Williamsburg Memories, Lakewood, NJ: CIS Publications, 1988. —— “The Economic Revitalization of the Hasidic Community in Williamsburg,” in New World Hasidim – Ethnographic Studies of Hasidic Jews in America, J.S. BelcoveShalin ed., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995, 181–204. —— Hasidic Williamsburg: A Contemporary American Hasidic Community, Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995. Krasner, J.B. The Benderly Boys and American Jewish Education, Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2011.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

250

Bibliography

Krauss, Y. “Lih.yot im Hazman–Hagut Vehanhaga Halakha Lema’aseh Bemishnato shel Harav Menahem Mendel Schneerson, HaAdmor MiLubavitch,” unpub. PhD dissertation, Bar Ilan University, 2001. Krumbein, E. “Mereb H . aim Mebrisk Vehagryd Soloveichik Ve’ad Sheurei Harav Aharon Lichtenstein – Al Gilgula shel Masoret Halimud,” Netuim 9 (2002), 51–94. Kula, T. “H . agigat Bat Miz.vah Vlimud Gmara Lenashim Kedfus H . inukh Vetrabut Yih.udiyim shel Hana’ara Bakibuz. Hadati,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 1994. Laufer, M.M. Bez.el Hahokhma, New York: n.p, 1987. Leibowitz, Y. Emunah Historyah Ve’arakhim, Jerusalem: Akadamon Press, 1982. Leiter, M. “Hameh.aber Shut ‘Sho’el u-Meishiv’ (Kavim Lidmuto),” Hadarom 29 (1969), 146–70. —— “She’eri Hagaon Ze’ev Leiter,” Hadarom 40 (1975), 192–204. Leit.er, Z.W. Die Stellung der Frau im Talmud, (Amsterdam: Joachimsthal’s Stoomdrukkerij, 1918. Less, N. “Znut Vesah.ar Benashim Bah.evrah Hayehudit Bereshit Hame’ah Haesrim,” Kivunim 5 (2002), 214–25. Levenstein, N. “Limud Torah Lenashim,” Pnei Moshe, n.p., 2008, 214–25. Levy, J. “Da’at Harambam al Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Hama’ayan 34 (1994), 10–14. Levin, Y. (ed.), Ele Ezkera – Osef Toldot Kedoshei 1940–1945, 7 vols., New York: n.p., 1956. Levine, S. Prakim Bah.inukh Hayehudi Bepolin Bame’a Hatsha-esre Vereshit Hame’ah Haesrim,Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1997. Liebman, C. “Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life,” in Dimensions of Orthodox Judaism, R.P. Bulka ed., New York: Ktav, 1983, 33–105. —— “Modern Orthodoxy in Israel,” Judaism 47 (1998), 405–10. Lipkin, B. H . eshbono shel Olam, Lod: Makhon Hasefer, 2000. Loewenthal, N. “Women and the Dialectic of Spirituality in Hasidism,” in Within Hasidic Circles: Studies in Hasidism in Memory of Mordecai Wilensky, I. Etkes et al. eds, The Bialik Institute: Jerusalem, 1999, 7–65 (English section of volume). —— “Leh.aber Olamot – Nigleh Venistar, Limud Uma’aseh: Yeshivato shel Ha’admor Haah.aron shel H . abad, ‘770’ U-snifeha,” in I. Etkes ed., Yeshivot Ubatei Midrashot, Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2007, 369–94. Luria, I. “H . inukh Ve’ideologia: Reishit Darka shel Hayeshiva Hah.abadit,” in Yashan Mipenei H . adash: Meh.karim Betoldot Yehudei Mizrah. Eyropah Ubetarbutam: Shai le’Imanu’el Etkes, vol. 1, D. Assaf and A. Rapoport-Albert eds., Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 2009, 151–64. Luz, E. Parallels meet: Religion and Nationalism in the Early Zionist Movement (1882–1904), Lenn J. Schramm, trans., Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1985. Manekin, R. “Haortodoxya Bekrakov Al saf Hame’ah Haesrim,” in Kraka, Kazimeij, Cracow, Elh.anan Reiner ed., Tel Aviv: Hamakhon Leh.eker Hatfuz.ot 2001, 173–79. —— “‘Mashehu H . adash Legamrei’ – Hitpath.uto shel Ra’ayon Hah.inukh Hadati Lebanot Ba’et Hah.dasha,” Masechet 2 (2004), 63–85. —— “The Lost Generation: Education and Female Conversion in fin de siècle Krakow,” Polin 18 (2006), 189–220. Mayah, M. A World Built, Destroyed, and Rebuilt: Rabbi Yehuda Amital’s Confrontation with the Memory of the Holocaust, Jersey City: Ktav Publishing House, 2004.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Bibliography

251

McCarthy Brown, K. “Fundamentalism and the Control of Women,” in Fundamentalism and Gender, John Stratton ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, 75–201. Meisels, D. The Rebbe: The Extraordinary Life and Worldview of Rabbeinu Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe, Lakewood, NJ: n.p., 2010. Michman, B. “Tokhniyot Halimudim Lebatei Hasefer Ha’amamiyim shel Hamizrah.i Mishnat 1932,” in Bein Masoret Leh.idush: Meh.karim Beyahadut Z.iyonut U’medinat Yisrael, E. Don Yih.ya ed., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2005, 199–224. Mintz, J. H . asidic People – A Place in the New World, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Mirsky, Y. “An Intellectual and Spiritual Biography of Rabbi Avraham Yitzhaq Hacohen Kook from 1865 to 1904,” unpub. PhD diss., Harvard University, 2007. Morris, B. “Women of Valor: Female Religious Activism and Identity in the Lubavitcher Community of Brooklyn 1955–1987,” unpub. PhD diss., State University of New York in Binghamton, 1989. —— Female Education in the Lubavitcher Community: The Beth Rivkah and Machon Chana Schools, Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1992. —— “Agents or Victims of Religious Ideology?,” in New World Hasidim – Ethnographic studies of Hasidic Jews in America, J.S. Belcove-Shalin ed., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. —— “Female Education in the Lubavitcher Community,” in Women in Spiritual and Communitarian Societies, W. Chmielewski ed., New York: Syracuse University Press, 1998, 221–35. Neuman, A. Al Hatorah Ve’al Hatemura, London: n.p., 1991. Neusner, J. “Torah and Culture: H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture after Fifty Years: A Judaic Response,” In Judaism and Christianity: New Directions for Dialogue and Understanding, Alan Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner, eds, Boston, MA: Brill, 2010, 217–42. Oren, G. “Ah.vat Ba’alei Hadat Hagdurim Bedarkhei Hadatot – Nokhri, Ger Veisha Bmishnat Hame’iri,” Da’at 60 (2007), 47–61. Oyerbakh, M. Zikhronot Harav Moshe Oyerbakh, Jerusalem: Hamaayan, 1982. Oyerbakh, S.A. Toldot Harav Doktor Moshe Oyerbakh, Beer Sheva: n.p., 2000. Peli-Cohen, P. “Rabi Moshe Feinstein – Rav Amerikai,” Hadoar 65(23), April 11, 1986, 8–12. Pick, S. “The Rav: Biography and Bibliography,” BDD 6 (1998), 27–44. —— “The Rav: The Need for a Comprehensive Biography,” BDD 10 (2000), 37–57. Pni’el, N. Prakim Betoldot Hah.inukh Haivri, Tel Aviv: Eked, 1981. Polen, N. “Miriam’s Dance: Radical Egalitarianism in H . asidic Thought,” Modern Judaism 12:1 (1992), 1–21. Poll, S. The Hasidic Community of Williamsburg, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Porush, I. Nashim Korot: Yitrona shel Hashuliyut Beh.evrah Hayehudit Bemizrah. Eyropah, Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2001. Rakeffet-Rothkoff, A. The Rav: The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House, 1999. Rappel, D. “Hah.inukh Hayehudi Begermanyah Bame’a Hatsha-Esre Ba’aspaklaryah shel Sifrei Halimud,” in Sefer Aviad: Kovez. Ma’amarim Umeh.karim Lezikhro shel Ishayaho Wolfsberg-Aviad Z”l, Y. Refa’el ed., Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1986, 305–16. Rappoport, R. “Keruv Veikar Din Torah: Diyun Bepsikato shel Maran Rabi Moshe Feinstein,” BDD 16 (2005), 5–23.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

252

Bibliography

Rapoport-Albert, A “On Women in Hasidism-S.A. Horodecky and the Maid of Ludmir Tradition,” in Jewish History; Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, A. Rapoport-Albert and S.J. Zipperstein eds., London: P. Halban, 1988, 396–529. Ravitzky, A. “H . adash min Hatorah? Al Haortodoxyah Ve’al Hamodernah,” in Emunah Bizmanim Mishtanim: Al Mishnato shel Harav Y.D. Soloveitchik, A. Sagi ed., Jerusalem: Religious Kibutz Press, 1997, 445–59. —— Iyunim Maymoniyim, Jerusalem: Shoken, 2006. Rechnitz, I. “Teokratya Vedemokratya Bemishnato shel Harav Eli’ezer Yehudah Valdenberg,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2012. Reichner, E. By faith alone: the story of Rabbi Yehuda Amital, E. Fischer, trans., New Milford, CT; Jerusalem: Maggid, 2011. Rosen-Tzvi, I. “Metafysyka Behithavutah Hapulmus Beyeshivat Merkaz Harav-Iyun Bikorti,” Me’ah shnot Z.iyonnut Datit, vol. 3, A. Sagi et al. eds., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2003, 421–45. —— Hatek.es Shelo Hayah: Mikdash, Midrash Umigdar Bemasekhet Sot.ah, Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008. Rosenburg-Friedman, L. Haulpenot Harishonot Bitkufat Hayishuv, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002. —— Mahapkhaniyot Be’al Khorh.an: Nashim Umigdar Bez.iyonut Hadatit Bitkufat Hayishuv, Jerusalem: Yad Yiz.hak Ben Z.vi, 2005. Rosman, M.J. “The History Of Jewish Women In Early Modern Poland: An Assessment,” Polin 18 (2006), 25–56. Ross, T. “A Bet-Midrash of Her Own: Women’s Contribution to the Study and Knowledge of Torah,” Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, H. Kreisel ed., Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006, 309–58. —— Expanding the Palace of the Torah: Orthodoxy in Feminism, Waltham, MA: Brandeis Press, 2004. Roznak, A. Hahalacha Hanevuit, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2007. Rubin, A. “Samuel Archivolti and the Antiquity of Hebrew Pointing,” JQR 101 (2011), 233–43. Rubin, I. Satmar: Two Generations of an Urban Island, 2nd ed., New York: Lang, 1997. Safrai, S. “Meh.uyavutan shel Nashim Bemiz.vot Bemishnatam shel Hatana’im,” Sefer Hashanah shel Universitat Bar-Ilan Madaei Hayahadut Umada’ei Haruah. 26–27 (1995), 227–36. Safrai, Z. and Sagi, A. (eds.) Bein samkhut Le’otonomya Bemasoret Yisrael, Tel Aviv: Hakibuz. Hameuh.ad, 1997. Sagi, A. “Harav Soloveitchik: Hagut Yehudit Lenokhah. Hamodernah,” in Emuna Bizmanim Mishtanim: Al Mishnato shel Harav Y.D. Soloveitchik, A. Sagi, Jerusalem: Religious Kibutz Press, 1997, 461–500. —— Etgar Hashiva el Hamasoret, Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2003. Sefer Ha-sheluhim, 4 vols., New York: Kehot, 1991. Schneller, R. “Tzmih.ato Vehitpath.uto shel H . inukh Habanot Baedah H . aredit,” in Mikhtam Ledavid—Sefer Zikaron Larav David Okes, I. Gilat et al. eds., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 1978, 331–36. Schwartz, D. “Harav Hanazir Al Ma’amad Haishah,” Telalei Orot 5 (1994), 178–96. —— Faith at the Crossroads: A Theological Profile of Religious Zionism, Batya Stein, trans., Leiden: Brill, 2002. Schwarz., D. “Rabbi Shmuel Arkivolti: Toldotav Uktavav, She’elot Utshuvot Veigrot,” Asufut 7 (1993), 69–156.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Bibliography

253

Schwartz, J. Mahapekhat H . inukh Habanot Bedorenu, Jerusalem: Hamosad Leidud Limud Hatorah, 1998. Schweid, E. Demokratyah Vehalacha, Jerusalem: Magness, 1997. Scott, J. “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis,” American Historical Review 91:5 (1986), 1056–61. Shaffir, W. “Jewish Messianism Lubavitch-Style: An Interim Report,” Jewish Journal of Sociology 35:2 (1993), 115–28. —— “Interpreting Adversity; Dynamics of Commitment in a Messianic Redemption Campaign,” Jewish Journal of Sociology 36:1 (1994), 43–53. —— “Boundaries and Self-Presentation among the Hasidim: A Study in Identity Maintenance,” in New World Hasidim – Ethnographic Studies of Hasidic Jews in America, J.S. Belcove-Shalin ed., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995, 31–68. Shalom, A. “Vehayu Einekha Ro’ot et Morekha,” Shma’atin 172–73 (2008), 15–34. Sharfshteyn, Tz. Toldot Hah.inukh Beyisra’el Badorot Ha’akhronim, 2 vols., New York: Ogen, 1945–49. —— “Ba’aayot Hah.inukh Hayehudi Be’artzot Habrit,” in Hah.inukh Ha’ivri Bitefutsot Hagola, Jerusalem: Hotzat Hasfarim Leyad Hauniversita Haivrit, 1948. Shekhter, T. “Dyokanah shel Ishah Maskilit Begaliz.iyah,” unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 1997, 77–84. Shen, D. Shoh.arei Hashem Beharei Hakarpatim, David Alfasi, trans., Jerusalem: Shem, 2005. Shfara’am, E. “Hama’arekhet Hah.inukhit shel Kibuz.ei Hakibuz. Hadati Vekibuz.ei Po’alei Agudat Yisrael – Meymad Mashve,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 1994. Shiffer, V. Ma’arekhet Hah.inukh Hah.aredi Beyisrael—Takz.iv, Pikuah., Bakara, Jerusalem: Makhon Floreshaymer Lemh.kerei Mediniyut, 1998. Shilo, M. “H . inukh Ne’arot Ke’emz.aei Le’iz.uv H . evrah H . adashah: Hamikre shel BeitHasefer Evelina De-Rotshild,” in Haivriyot Hah.adashot – Nashim Bayishuv Ubaz.iyunut Brei Hamigdar, M. Shilo, ed., Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Z.vi, 2002, 229–47. —— Princess or Prisoner? Jewish Women in Jerusalem 1840–1914, Boston: Brandeis University Press, 2005. —— “Aliyah La’arez. Keprishut Nashit—Almanot Bayishuv Hayashan Beyerushalayim Bame’ah Hathsha-esre,” in Bein Masoret Leh.idush—Meh.karim Beyahadut, Z.iyonut Umedinat Yisrael, E. Don-Yih.ye ed., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University, 2005, 15–36. Shochetman, E. Dinei H . inukh Al-Pi Hamishpat Ha’ivri, unpub. MA thesis, Hebrew University in Jerusalem, 1962. —— “Shiurei Torah Bemosad H . iloni: Tshuvat Maran Hara’aya Kook,” Teh.umin 10 (1989), 245–57. Shtadler, N. “Lehitparnes o Leh.akhot Lenes: Hamilkud Hah.aredi Vehishtakfuto Beyah.as Torah Ve’avodah,” in H . aredim Yisraelim: Hishtalvut Belo Tmi’ah?, I. Siv.an and K . . Caplan eds., Tel Aviv: Makhon V.an-Lir biyerushalayim, 2003. Shulvas, M.A. Roma Veyrushalayim: Toldot Hayah.as Shel Yehudei Italiyah Le’eretzYisrael, Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1944. Shzeransky, B. Kunteres Hazikaron Leyom Hashanah Haesrim Leptirat Harav Meir Shz.ranski z”l, Tel Aviv: n.p., 1993. Silver, A. “May Women be Taught Bible, Mishnah and Talmud?,” Tradition 17:3 (1978): 74–85. Slotzky, J. Ha’itonut Hayehudit-Russit Bame’ah Hatesh’a-esre, Tel Aviv: Mosad Biyalik, 1971.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

254

Bibliography

—— Haitonut Hayehudit-Russit Bame’ah Haesrim (1900–1918), Tel Aviv: Hamakhon Leh.eker Hatefuz.ot, 1978. Solomon, N. “H . illuk and Hakirah,” Dine Israel 4 (1973), LXIX–CVI. —— “Definition and Classification in the Work of the Lithuanian Halakhists,” Dinei Israel 6 (1975), LXIII-CIII. —— “Concepts of ze nehene in Analytical Jewish School,” Law Annual 3 (1980), 49–62. —— “Anomaly and Theory in the Analytic School,” The Jewish Law Annual 6 (1987), 126–47. —— The Analytic Movement – Hayyim Soloveitchik and His Circle, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Soloveichik, H. Shu”t Khemakor Histori, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1990. ——Hashut Kemakor Histori, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar, 1991. Soraski, A. Yovel Lah.inukh Ha’az.ma’i, Bnei Brak: Histadrut Morei Agudat Yisrael, 1983. —— Lapid Ha’esh, 2 vols., Bney Brak: 1997–2003. Spiegel, U. Vetalmud Torah Neged Kulam: H . inukh H . aredi Lebanim Beyerushalyim, Jerusalem: Makhon Floersheimer, 2011. Stampfer, S. “Gender Differentiation and Education of the Jewish Woman in Nineteenth Century Eastern Europe,” Polin 7 (1992), 63–87. Stow, K. Alienated Minority: the Jews of Medieval Latin Europe, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Stlaw, M. “Zakhar Unekeva Bera’am – Migdar Veyahadut H . azal,” in Rez.ef Utmura – Yehudim Veyahadut Be’erez.-Yisrael Habizantit Noz.rit, I. Levine ed., Jerusalem: Yad Yiz.h.ak Ben-Z.vi, 2004, 486–506. Supple, B. “A Business Elite: German-Jewish Financiers in Nineteenth-Century New York,” Business History Review 31:2 (1958), 143–76. Szubin, A. “Why Lubavitch Wants the Messiah Now,” Apocalyptic Time, A. Baumgarten ed., Leiden: Brill, 2000, 215–41. Ta-Shma, I. “Toldot Hitkabluto shel Sefer Mishne-Torah Beitalyah,” in Keneset Meh.karim: Iyunim Basifrut Harabanit Beymei Habeinayim, vol. 2, Jerusalem: Mosad Biyalik, 2004, 299–308. Taub, E. “Manhigut Datit Bama’arekhet Hapolitit: Mehanh.ayah Meruh.ket Lemuravut Pe’ila: Darkhei Hahanhagah shel Harabanim Shakh Veyosef Lehalakha Ulema’ase,” unpub. PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2004. —— “The Opening of the Educational System to the Secular and its Transformation from a Peripheral Factor to a Central Factor in Israeli Society,” Jewish Political Studies Review 2 (2009), 109–31. Tendler, M.D. “Rabbi Moshe Feinstein,” in Pioneers in Jewish Medical Ethics, F. Rosner ed., Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1997, 55–68. Tovardowitz, B. Betevunah Bonah Beitah – Beirur Mesimoteha Vekhoh.oteiha shel Ha’ishah Ha’yehudit Bebeitah, Bah.evrah, U’ba’olam Le’or Hatorah Vehah.asidut, Kfar H . abad: Eshel, 1997. Turner, Y. “Koah. Haz.ibur Bemishnato Hatdatit-z.iyonit shel Harav H . ayyim Hirshenzon,” in Yahadut Pnim Veh.uz.: De’alog Beyen Olamot, A. Sagi et al. eds, Jerusalem: Magness, 2000, 31–56. Twersky, M. “A Glimpse of the Rav: Talmud Torah for Women and the Mehitsa Controversy,” in Women and the Study of Torah, J. Wolowelsky ed., Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House, 2001, 49–54. Veinman, Z. Mekatoviz. AD 5 Iyar—Prakim Betoldot Agudat Yisrael Vehayahdut Hah.aredit Perspektivot H . adashot, Jerusalem: Vatikin, 1995.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Bibliography

255

Veinstein, S. “Ma’amad Haishah hadatit Kemorah: Ha’im Ha’isur Hafakh Leheter?,” in Lihiyot Isha Yehudiya, vol. 4, T. Cohen ed., Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2007, 77–92. Volkov, S. “Yehudei Germanyah bame’ah Hatsh’a-esre: Sha’aftanut, Haz.lah.ah, Tmi’a,” in Hitbolelut Vetmi’a – Hemshekhiyut Vetmura Betarbut Ha’amim Ubeyisrael, J. Kaplan and M. Stern eds, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar 1989, 173–88. Weiss-Halivni, D. “Talmud Torah Lenashim,” Mayim Medalav (1997), 19. —— Mekorot Umasorot – Shabat, Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1982. Weissman, D. “H . inukh Banot Datiyot Beyerushalyim Bitkufat Hashilton Habriti,” in H . inukh Dati Venoa’ar Dati – Dilemot Umetah.im, M. Bar-Lev, ed., Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1992, 9–29. —— “H . inukh Banot Datiyot Beyerushalayim Bitkufat Hamandat Habriti: Hitmasdutan Vehitgabshutan shel H . amesh Ideologyot H . inuchiyot,” unpub. PhD diss., Hebrew University, 1994. —— “‘Bais Ya’akov’ as an Innovation in Jewish Women’s Education: A Contribution to the Study of Education and Social Change,” Studies in Jewish Education 7 (1995), 278–99. Weissman Joselit, J. New York’s Jewish Jews: the Orthodox Community in the Interwar Years, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990. Weissman, Y. “Ha’admor Mesatmar Veh.asidut Satmar Betkufato (1886–1979),” unpub. MA thesis, Haifa University, 2001. Westreich, E. Tmurot Bema’amad Ha’ishah Bamishpat Ha’ivri, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002. Wolowelsky, J. Women, Jewish Law, and Modernity – New Opportunities in a PostFeminist Age, New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1997. Wurzburger, R. “Al Nashiyut, Meshih.iyut, Uma Shebeineihem: Nashim H . ozrot Beteshuva Beh.asidut H . abad,” in Lihyot Isha Yehudiya, vol. 4, T. Cohen ed., Jerusalem: Kolekh, 2007, 173–84. Yavrov, Z. Ma’ase Ish, 3 vols., 2nd ed., Bnei Brak: n.p., 2000. Yuter, A.J. “Nashim Vetalmud Torah: Iyun Hilkhati Tah.biri,” Hadarom 61 (1992), 38–41. Zalkin, M. “‘Sheyihiye Kulo Ivri’: Reshet H . inukh Yavneh Belita Bein ‘H . inukh H . aredi’ Le’H . inukh Ivri’” in Zkhor Davar Le’avdekha: Asefat Ma’amarim Lezekher Dov Rapel, S. Glick ed., Jerusalem: Mikhlelet Lipshitz, 2007, 121–43. Zalz.berg, S. “Olaman shel Neshot H . asidut Toldot Aharon: Ma’amadan Kepratim Ukekvuz.ah,” unpublished PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 2005. Zevin, S.J. Ishim Veshitot, Jerusalem: Beit Hillel, 1979. Zohar, D. Meh.uyavut Yehudit Be’olam Moderni: Harav H . ayyim Hirshenzon Veyah.aso el Hamoderna, Jerusalem: Hakibutz Hameuh.ad, 2003. Z.ur, A. “Dekonstrukz.yah Dekdusha – Mavo Lehaguto shel Harav Shagar,” Akadamot 21 (2008), 110–39. Zusman, Y. “‘Vedibarta Bam … Uktavtem Otam’: Mishnat Psikotav shel Harav Moshe Feinstein – Hashva’at Dibrot Moshe Le-Igrot Moshe,” unpub. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2007.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Index of modern scholars

Barel, Esti 219 Baumel Joseph, Norma 114, 118f., 124, 127 n. 84 Benayaho, Meir 24 Ben-Naim, Ellisa 98 n. 52 Blidstein, Gerald 225 n. 107 Brown, Benjamin 58 n. 45, 65 Brown, Iris 95

Leibowitz, Yeshayahu 1 Levi, Judah 18 Liebman, Charles 103, 188

David Ellenson 98 n. 52 Davidman. Lynn 144

Rapoport-Albert, Ada 10 Rosenburg-Friedman, Lilakh 189 Rosen-Tzvi, Ishay 210 Rosman, Moshe 39 Ross, Tamar 217 Rubin, Israel 160, 182

El-Or, Tamar 95 Elior, Rah.el 147 Faur, Yosef 212, 225 n. 107 Friedman, Menah.em 36, 63, 65 Gertner, H . ayyim 41 Grossman, Avraham 2, 15, 27 Halivni, David Weiss 17, 28 Handelman, Suzan 135–7 Harvey, Ze’ev 18

Morris, Bonnie 131, 153 Porush, Iris 31

Schapiro, Mark 23 Sharfshteyin, Tzvi 105 Soloveitchik, H . aym 4 Stampher, Shaul 32 Stocks, Janet 144

Ilan, Tal 12

Weissman, Deborah 36 Weissman Joselit, Jena 103 Westreich, Elimelech 2

Kranzler, George 128, 182 Krauss, Yitzh.ak 150

Zalkin, Mordekhai 56 n. 2 Zohar, Noam 220

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Index of persons

Admanit, Z.uriel 195 Agnon, Shmuel Yosef 227 Akiba, Jose ben, R. 17 Akiva Eyger, R. 18 Alter Rebbe (R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi) 133f., 166; “women’s canon” 133; Shulh.an Arukh Harav 133–35, 172 Amital, Judah, R. 201f. Archivolti, Samuel, R. 22f., 52, 74 Arendt, Moshe 193 Ariel, Jacob, R. 209f., 216, 218 Asad, Judah, R. 54f. Ashkenazi, Bezalel ben Abraham 40 Aviner, Elisha, R. 208 Avli, Abraham, R. 180 Ayash, Yehuda, R. 19 Azulai, H . ayyim Joseph David (H.YDA) 25, 24, 85, 172 Bamberger, Isaac Dov, R. 49 Bamberger, Zekel Halevi, R. 49f. Bar-Shaul, Elimelekh, R. 191 Bekher, Fortuna 37 Belzer Rebbe 138f. Ben Azai (Simon b. Azai) 13; disagreement with R. Eleazar, 16, 28 n. 40; menstruation (Ber 22a) 85; in General Index see Mishnah Sotah 3, 4 Biliz.er, Ephraim, R. 55 Bloch, Joseph, R. 34 Bolah, Menah.em 195 Brod, Menah.em, R. 138 Bruriah 10, 24, 83 Caro, Joseph, R. 22, 24 Cherlow, Yuval, R. 209 Ciechanowicz, Yeruh.am 50f.

Deborah the prophetess, 52, 114 Desilva, H . izkiyahu, R. (Pri h.adash) 179 DeTarny, Yeshaya ben-Elya, R. 20 Ehrenfeld, Samuel, R. 85 Ehrenreich, H . ayyim Judah, R. 50 Einhorn, Wolf, R. 136 Eizenbakh, Shalom Leib, R. 47 Eleazar ben Azariah, R. 16f., 19, 24, 84 Eli’ezer Azikri., R. 87 Eli’ezer b. Hyrcanus, R.: 13, 16, 75; intentions at sacrifice [TB Zevah.im 13a] 134; “wisdom in the loom” [Y. Sotah 3, 4 16a] 16, 108 in General Index see Mishnah Sotah 3, 4; Y. Sotah 3, 4 16a – “Let the words of Torah be burned … ”; tiflut Elijah of Vilnius, R. 85 Elyashiv, Joseph Shalom, R. 92f. Epstein, Baruch, R. 23 Epstein, Jeh.iel Michael Halevi, R. 39 Falk, Joshua ben Alexander Hacohen, R. 21, 25, 81 Feinstein, Moshe, R. 6; biography, 110f.; concern for social order, 115f., 123; gender separation, 117–19; house of Jacob (Beit Yaakov) as women 112; mother as educator, 112; school financing, 120; self-study permitted, 114; women entering male sphere, 121f., 124; “women’s canon,” 113f., 117f., 123; women’s liberation, 116, 122f. Firer, Ben-Z.ion, R. 200 Fisher, Esther 219 Frankel-Goldschmidt, H . ava 192 Friedman, Nathan Z.vi 200

258

Index of persons

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Friedman, Simh.a 195 Fund, Meir, R. 114 Geshtetner, Nathan, R. 76, 168 Geshtetner, Samuel Judah, R. 168, 170; commentaries forbidden, 173–75; condemnation of Beis Yaakov, 169; exegetical strategy, 172, 177; independent study forbidden, 175f.; upholding Hungarian tradition, 169; tiflut, 170 Goren, Shlomo, R. 204–6 Grass, H . ayyim Dov, R. 45f. Grass, Shlomo, R. 178–80 Gross, Shamai Kehat, R. 79, 83f. Gunzberg, Aryeh Leib, R. 41 Gutman, Jacob, R. (Rebbe of Zavriz.e), n. 86, 61 Hacohen, Aaron Mendel, R. 43 H . afez. H . ayyim (R. Yisrael Meir Hakohen of Radin) 49, 55, 58 n. 45, 172, 191, 206; in Joel Teitelbaum 165f.; letters of 169; Oral Torah permitted 194, 203; socio-historical rationale for women’s study 82, 85, 129, 165, 192, 193; in Valdenberg-Tsanz Rebbe debate 90–92; “women’s canon” 78f., 166, 192 Halberstam, Baruch, R. 53 Halevi, David, R. 19 H . ayyim ibn Attar, R. 132 H . efez., Mordechai, R. 132 Heller, Yom-Tov Lippman, R. 14 Henkin, Judah Hertzl, R. 205f., 218; feminism and Torah study, 206f.; reading of Maimonides, 206 Hezekiah, King of Judah 69 Hildesheimer, Esriel, R. 49, 52 Hillel 54 Hirsch, Samson Raphael, R. 33, 49 Hirshenzon, H . aim, R. 105–9 Horowitz, Eli, R. 210, 217; reading of Kook, 211 Horowitz, Jacob Isaac, R. (Seer of Lublin), 158 Horowitz., Meir, R. 44 Idels, Shmuel, R. (the Maharsha), 54 Isaac Alfasi, R. (RI”F), 18 Issachar Dov of Belz., R. 35 Isserles, Moshe, R. (ReMA): laws on menstruation 87, 90f.; ruling applied

among Ashkenazi165: ruling not applied in Lithuania 39; women to study relevant Halachot 22, 44, 51, 76, 151, 191, 200 Johanan ben Zakai, R. 17 Jose b. Akiba, R. 12 Joshua ben Levi, R. 40, 72 Joshua, R. 17, 24 Kahaneman, Joseph, R. 34 Kallen, Horace 103 Kaplan, Mordecai 103 Karelitz, Avraham Yeshayahu, R. (H . azon Ish) 63–65, 70, 78 Kook, Abraham Isaac Hacohen, R. 107, 196, 208–11, 216 Landau, Annie 37 Landau, Jacob, R. 25, 40 Landau, Menachem Mendel, R. 43f. Leiter, Ze’ev Wolf, R. 47, 48 Levin, Bunim, R. 138 Lichtenstein, Aaron, R. 202f. Luria, Solomon, R. (Rashal, Maharshal), 25, 180 Maharil (Jacob b. Moses Moellin) 81, 83, 93, 164f., 175f., 204; mother teaching daughter 20, 25, 38, 53, 204 Maharshak, Shmu’el Dov, R. 105 Maimonides: blessing on time-bound commandments 51; Laws of Repentance 10.5 212; Laws of Torah Scrolls 41; Laws of Torah Study 1.1 77, 91f.; Laws of Torah Study 1, 2 212; MT Melakhim 1:5 107, 121; non-seminal discharge 85; nullification 178; perceptions of women 203, 219; Rambam Yomi (H . abad daily reading cycle) 140f., 148; six universal miz.vot 139; Temple laws 140f.; see also Shagar, R.: reading of Maimonides; in General Index see also Mishnei Torah Talmud Torah 1:13; tiflut Menah.em Me’iri, R. (The Me’iri) 15f., 24, 80f., 170 Min-Hahar, Shlomo, R. 192 Miriam 105 Moellin, Jacob b. Moses, R. see Maharil Mordechai ben Hillel, R. 18

Index of persons Moriel, Judah, Dr. 194 Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, R. 21 Nah.man, K. (Old Beis Yaakov) 65 Nathanson, Joseph Saul Halevi, R. 39–41, 54, 56, 60 n. 69, 74, 201 Neriya, Moses Z.vi, R. 138, 194

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Obadiah of Bertinoro, R. 14, 65, 204 Oyerbakh, Moshe, R. 66 Peterkofski, Malka 219 Pineles, Hillel 48 Pollack, Menah.em, R. 95 Posek, Hilel, R. 199 Rabbeinu Tam 19, 51 Rabenu Asher (RoSH) 18, 178f., 181, 191f. Rabinovich, Akiva, R. 44 Rapel, Dov 194 Rapoport, Shabtai, R. 116f. Rashi 76, 86; in General Index see also Rashi’s Commentary on the Tanakh Re’im, Idit, 193 Rebbe of Tsanz (R. Jekuthiel Judah Halberstam) 84, 86–89, 91, 95; immutability of tradition 88 Reiniz., Jacob Kopel 192 Revel, Bernard 103 Rogatchover Gaon (R. Yosef Rosen) 134 Rosenberg, Shimon Gershon, R. see Shagar, R. Rosenfeld, Ben-Z.ion 202f. Rosenfeld, Leonard, R. 198 Rosh: see Rabenu Asher Rubin, Avraham, R. 79, 81–84 Schenirer, Sarah 34, 228 Schmidman, Yiz.h.ak, R. 105 Schna’abalg, Schrage Freibush, R. 76 Schneersohn, Joseph Isaac, R. (Rayatz) 132, 146, 151 Schneersohn, Shalom Dov-Ber, R. (Rashab) 132 Schneerson, Menah.em Mendel, R (Seventh Rebbe) 6, 151, 215; “cunningness” 137, 143; conversation with Belzer Rebbe 138f.; feminism, 144; gender roles 145, 152; h.aredi reactions against 138; as Messiah 146f., 150; positive traits of women 131, 135–37, 145, 152; role of women in redemption 137; study of H . asidism 139, 142; study of Maimonides 140f.; women as

259

teachers 129, 136f.; women’s Torah study 128f., 130, 137, 143; in General Index see also H . abad; H . asidism: teaching to women; messianism Sforim, Mendele Moykher 32 Shagar, R. (R. Shimon Gershon Rosenberg) 211f., 215f., 219; cultural feminism, 218; feminine voice in Torah study, 214; interpretation of Schneerson, 215; post-modernism, 212, 216; readings of Maimonides, 77, 191, 212–17 Shah.ar, Ben-Sarim 191f. Shakdiel, Pnina 191 Shakh, Elazar Menah.em, R. 5, 77f. Shapira, Abraham Kahana, R. 203 Shapira, H . ayyim Elazar, R. 36 Shik, Moshe, R (Maharam Shik) 45, 47 Shz.ranski, Meir, R. 68–73, 192 Simpson, Eliyahu, R. 132 Sirkis, Joel ben Samuel, R. 19, 21 Sofer, Akiva, R. 95 Sofer, Moses, R. (H . atam Sofer) 45 Soloveitchik, Isaac Ze’ev, R. 42 Soloveitchik, Joseph Ber, R. 41f., 56, 74, 77, 86, 138 Soloveitchik, Joseph Dov, R. 42, 192, 197, 199; co-education, 197f.; legacy, 199; metaphysics of gender, 197 Soroz.kin, Zalman, R. 52, 70f., 74f., 206 Spector, Isaac Elhanan, of Kovno, R. 52 Stelviz., Meir, R. 73f. Tau, Z.vi, R. 210 Tavyomi, Tuvia Yehuda, R. 72f., 75 Tehilla, 227 Teitelbaum, Aaron, R. 168, 180 Teitelbaum, Feige 168 Teitelbaum, Joel, R. 6, 80, 82, 158; antiZionism, 159, 183; condemnation of Beis Yaakov, 160, 165; Hebrew language, 162, 182; innate characteristics of women, 164–66; modernity as enemy, 158, 183; new readings proving prohibition, 162f.; tiflut, 162; women’s canon, 163, 166 in General Index see also Satmar communities Teitelbaum, Moshe, R. 168; tiflut, 181 Teitelbaum, Shlomo, R. 158 Tendler, Mordechai, R. 114 Valdenberg, Eli’ezer, R. 85f., 90f. Vaserman, Abraham, R. 207

260

Index of persons

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Vayzer, Shimon, R. 193 Velner, Moses Dov, R. 76, 86 Verbermakher, H . ana Rah.el, 10 Volkin, Aharon, R. 54f. Vozner, Ben Zion, R. 175 Vozner, Samuel Halevy, R. 5, 79–84, 95, 168, 175; as bridge to mainstream h.aredi 79 Weisser, Meir Loeb b. Jehiel Michael, R. (Malbim) 180f. Winkler, Michael, R. 49f.

Wolf, Abraham Joseph, R. 66, 69, 80, 82, 95 Yadler, Ben Z.ion 37 Yehuda Assad, R. 18 Yentl, 9, 11, 25, 227 Zilber, Binyamin Yehoshu’a, R. 79 Zalman, Shneur, of Liadi see Alter Rebbe Z.adok Hacohen of Lublin, R. 29 n. 65

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Index of canonical citations

In this index, “n.” following a page number denotes the note reference number in the text, not the endnote itself at the end of a chapter.

Tanakh-Pentateuch

Tosefta

Genesis 11:4, 211; 12:8, 70; 46:26f., 111 Exodus 19:3, 136; 19:4f., 115; 19:13, 112; 35:25, 16 Deuternomy 4:9, 11; 6:7, 11; 11:19, 11, 133; 11:18–21, 12; 17:15, 107; 32:7, 35; 33:2, 10, 33:4, 134 n. 36. Numbers 5:11-31, 13 Joshua 1:8, 135 n. 41 Kings 2:3, 11 Jeremiah 31:20, 148 n. 108; 31:21, 149 n. 112 Micah 7:15, 147 n. 103

Berakhot 2:12, 16 n. 32, 85

Tanakh-Writings Psalms 2:3, 45; 119:126, 36, 129 Esther 8:17, 130 n. 10

Mishnah Hagiga 1:1, 17 Nedarim 4:3, 14 n. 23 Sotah 3:4, 13, 17 Kiddushin 1:7, 139 n. 61 Pirkei Avot 6:4, 63

Midrash Sifre Dvarim 46, 12, 17

Talmud Bavli Berakhot 17a, 137; 22a, 16 n. 34; 24a, 36; 28a, 163 n. 28 Shabbat 62a, 146 n. 89 Eruvin 101a, 146 n. 91 Beizah 5b, 178 n. 80 Megilla 14a, 146 n. 90 Katan 17a, 88 Hagiga 3b, 40; 9b, 92; 21a, 26; 21b, 15, 91 Kidushin 29b, 12, 17, 42, 51, 72, 75, 77; 34a, 12 n. 15 Sanhedrin 24a, 19; 94b, 69 Avodah Zarah 18b, 9 Zevahim 13a, 134

Talmud Yerushalmi Berakhot 2:4 26a, 16 n. 33; 3:4 6:4–7:1, 87; 3:1 21b, 85 Megilla 4:3 28b–29a, 72 Sotah 3:4 16a, 16f., 163

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

General index

Agudat Yisrael: Beis Yaakov support 36, 49, 72; Council of Torah Sages 71, 78, 110; English instruction 98 n. 41; expansion into US 52; failed reforms in Jerusalem 65; Satmar rejection of 159f.; and Tsanz Rebbe 86, 89; and Yavneh schools 34 anti-Zionism: Holocaust punishment for Zionism 159; mark of h.aredi identity 63, 108, 158–60, 180; modern Hebrew “Zionist language” 184 n. 23; rejection of Zionist institutions 159f., 183 assimilation 2f., 11, 32, 35; among American Jews 104,188; Beis Yaakov to combat 183; among Maskhilim 46; risk for women 56, 109; slow reaction to 40, 105; Tehilla’s daughter 227f. Austria-Hungary 3, 31; Vienna 34, 36, 228 the Bah. 19, 76 172f.; listening vs. hearing in Hakhel 21, 53 Beis Rachel 160f. Beis Yaakov: as ad hoc solution 55f., 66, 86, 94, 169, 180; founding of 5, 34f.; goals 64, 67, 94; growth 35f.; halachically legitimate 55, 69, 74, 83, 178; inculcates paradigm of h.aredi woman 64, 66; model for moderate Orthodox 199; rabbinical approval 35, 49, 69, 72f., 129, 178; religious Zionist version of 191, 193; teachers’ salaries vital 65; types of schools 35; see also curriculum: Beis Yaakov; Agudat Israel: Beis Yaakov support; Beis Yaakov, opposition and criticism Beis Yaakov, opposition and criticism: critics’ fears unwarranted 68, 180; curriculum too expansive 53, 79, 165f.; dangerous novelty 84; founded

on “false opinion” 160; halachically illegitimate 81; by Hungarian Orthodoxy 49f., 94, 160; other schools more successful 181; Rashi impermissible 80, 166, 169; ridiculed as “Beis Esau” 36; success no justification 181; violates tradition of oral transmission 53; Zionist connection (Agudat Yisrael) 160 Belarus (White Russia) 52, 110 Bessarabia 199 benediction see blessing berakhot see blessing blessing(s): 81, 87, 135, 160; appropriate for women’s study 164; over borrowed prayer shawl 51; on daughter’s birth 119; over exempt commandments 24, 77, 167; fathers not teaching daughters 70; while menstruating 89; over sacrifices 40; over time-bound commandments 42, 51; in Yiddish 160; see also blessing over Torah blessing over Torah (part of birkhot hashahar): ancient custom 24, 167; Brisk exegesis of 42; Torah chapters in morning prayers 25; is over enjoyments (birkhot hanehenin) 135; literal meaning of scripture 85; Mishnah passages on sacrifices in prayer book 40; miz.vot relevant to women 24f., 42, 44, 77, 201; Written Torah 85; implies exemption, not prohibition 51; implies independent commandment to study 77f., 134; implies independent study of Written Torah 21; is also on miz.vot not relevant to women 115; over “unsanctioned study” 176 Brisk 41f., 77

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

General index Cracow Rabbinic Conference (1901) 43–47, 56 cultural feminism 209, 214, 216–18 curriculum: in Beis Rachel 106, 161; in Beis Yaakov 69, 73, 92–94, 113, 117, 123, 169; in Beit H . anah 133; in Bnot Rachel 59 n. 63; conservative criticism of 53–55, 79, 169; excluding philosophical texts 92; excluding Talmud 83, 150, 190, 194; foreign languages 49f., goals of 56, 65, 178, 193, 198, 203, 205; Hebrew language 105, 125 n. 17; including Mishnah 190, 192, 194, 197, 203; including Talmud 83, 190, 192, 194f., 197f.; in Jerusalem schools 37; in Kefar Pines 194; in Maimonides School 192, 197; in religious Zionist schools 190, 192f.; secular subjects 19, 31, 37, 81, 105, 161, 203; vernacular languages 44; in women’s Beis Midrash 209 Da’at Torah 63, 72, 76f., 90 dispute between R. Eli’ezer and Ben Azai see Mishnah Sotah 3,4 – Eli’ezer–Ben Azai dispute domestic: education 32; nature of women 66; role 38, 94, 104, 144, 201, 208, 216 Eastern Europe: Maskhilim in 2f, 7 n. 9, 31, 189; h.aredi in 5, 43, 50, 64, 77, 191; h.adarim in 32, Orthodox society in 34, 53, 141; prostitution in 43; women’s education in 48, 52; Beis Yaakov in 64, 96; immigrants to US 102f, 159; Modern Orthodoxy in 189; Orthodox leadership in 207, 217 English language: instruction 37, 98 n.41, 159; literature mildly censored 161; rabbis 103; in Russian yeshivas 52; among Satmar girls 160; unnecessary in workplace 102 Evelina de Rothschild School (Jerusalem) 36f., 59 n. 53 exceptional women 9f., 47, 51f., 68, 76, 79f., as exemplars of class 228; lists of 47f., 55, 112, 199; narrowly defined 83f., 183; 203, as see also women as class, as individual exceptions feminism 7, 188; challenging gender roles 210, 216; and disintegration of family 144; driving women to study

263

Oral Torah 193; negative views of 123, 144, 196, 206f., 209f.; nuanced view of 218; Orthodox 190; religious 7, 210; and self-actualization 144; as symbol of modernity 217; and Torah study 206–8, 210; see also cultural feminism Galicia 31, 39, 47, 200, 228; Catholic schools in 31 gender differences, ontological 5, 39, 66, 149, 196, 230; dimorphic 5, 39, 149, 230; dual but equal 200, 203–5; feminist critique of 230; impurity of women 84, 94; ontological claims, assumptions 82, 84, 204; impediment to Torah study 84, 90; in Talmud 146; Torah study central to women’s sphere 135; uniqueness of female sphere 204; women’s sphere domestic customs and rituals 38; see also cultural feminism, gender roles, nature of women gender equality: apparent chauvinism in rabbinic literature 107; in broader culture 199; in education in religious kibbutzim 195; egalitarian themes in H . asidism 152; in moderate Orthodoxy 7, 188, 205, 208, 229; no influence on Schneerson 144f.; in religious sphere 109; and traditional family duties 66, 193; women’s suffrage 106f., 109 gender roles: changes in 2, 6, 64f., 152; criticism of 230; haredi model of 193, 228; maintained by Beis Yaakov 66; in Poland 39; source of religious life 38; Torah study dictated by 31, 39, 41, 56, 74f.; traditional 9, 11, 193, 201, 216, 230; woman as breadwinner 66, 228f. see also domestic, feminism gender separation 10, 76, 105, 115, 117f.; in women’s suffrage 107 Germany: neo-Orthodox in 33; reforms from 39; Agudat Yisrael in 49, 65, Jewish education in 57f. n. 30, 65; immigrants to Israel from 65, 95f.; Jewish immigrants to US 102 H . abad: Ah.ot Temimim (women’s study group) 132; ba’alot teshuva (“returnees”) 132; esoteric literature permitted women 140; gender roles 145, 147; H . abad houses 128; kabbalistic terminology 132, 140;

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

264

General index

outreach 128, 130f., 146f.; prominent women 132; Rambam Yomi (Maimonides daily readings), 140f., 148; rebbes taught daughters 128; role of women 131–33; role of youth 130; Torah not part of curriculum 150; shali’ah., sheluh.a 130–32; wealthy educated women in 130; in Index of Persons see also Schneerson, Menah.em Mendel, R (Seventh Rebbe); see also H . asidism: teaching to women; messianism Hakhel: conflated with Eli’ezer-Ben Azai dispute 166f.; hearing does not entail Mesorah 108; hearing is surface meaning of Torah 173, 204; literal interpretation 76; men listen, women hear 16f., 50, 68, 84; oral transmission to women 21, 53; as Maimonides’ source 19; women hear relevant commandments 45, 200; women may listen, but not be taught 72; women should hear laws and ethical teachings 118 Haskhala (Jewish Enlightenment) 2f., 7 n. 9, 32f., 71, 227 see also Maskhilim H . asidism: communities 37, 52, 79, 86, 130; egalitarianism in 152; esoteric knowledge in 140; exceptional women in 10; h.asidic discourse 10, 128, 132f., 215; yeshivas 132, 159; see also H . asidism: teaching to women H . asidism: teaching to women 132, 137–42, 151f.; no concern for “cunningness” in 143; because of “decline of the generations” 152; reinforces faith 155 n. 74 Hebrew language: false sign of Jewish unity 45; fathers to speak to sons 45; not for daily life 162; role in Jewish identity 108; “Zionist language” founded on heresy 184 n. 23 Hebrew language instruction: advanced instruction curriculum goal 105; in America 105, 125 n. 17; in Beis Brakha and Bnos Rah.el 37; in Beis Rachel 160; necessary 46, 50; in Old Beis Yaakov 65; prohibited 162f., 174, 182; in Rothschild school 37; in Russia 33 h.eder 32, 57 n.13, 197 Hungarian tradition 81, 89, 94f., 201 Hungary 18, 45, 202; Munkatch (Munkács, Mukachevo) 45; no need for Jewish girls’ education in 176;

Pressburg (Pozsony, Bratislava) 95; Satmar (Satu Mare, Szatmárnémeti) 158f.,160; Sighet (Sighetu Marmat¸iei, Márarossziget) 46f., 158; 75 ideal Jewish woman 3, 5, 31, 38, 229 Ikvei Haz.on (rival system to Beis Rachel) 161 immodesty 36, 181; education to combat 199; potential for 165, 171; in secular literature 43; in surrounding culture 113, 165; and women’s Torah study 139, 158; see also modesty independent Torah study: allowed 50; 77; allowed by Maharil 21, 81, 83; approval after proven skill 80f., 180; and communications technology 83; desire difficult to evaluate 81f.; desire proves worthiness 52; desire testifies to skill 52, 204; narrowly defined 175; in Geshtetner–Ben Zion Vozner argument 175f.; of Mishnah allowed 117; of Oral Torah allowed 85 Issachar and Zebulum 66, 219 Italy 22f. Jewish Enlightenment see Haskhala, Maskhilim Jewish female identity 10f., 36; Beis Yaakov to protect 94; educational goal 94, 203; emphasis in ulpanot 190; through engagement with Jewish texts 33, 44, 64, 94, 191, 193; erosion 40; in mission 131; and modernity 56, 164, 217; and secular 32; and study of philosophy 195; Torah study vital for 139 see also ideal Jewish woman, Jewish identity Jewish identity: in American context 103; goal of education 108; through isolation 64; loss through Russification 41; lost by Maskhilim 46; through Torah study 1, 219; see also Jewish female identity Kiz.ur Shulh.an Arukh 49, 65 kollel 64; female kollel 189; students in Williamsburg 128 Latvia 132; Riga 132 “Let the words of Torah be burned … ” see Y. Sotah 3, 4 16a

General index

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

Lithuania 41; schools in 34, relevant halachot not studied in 39; see also Litvish Litvish: accusations of false Messiah (Schneerson) 138; community 79, 93, 178f.; h.aredi ideology 77; yeshiva model 132, 215 Ma’ayan Ganim 22f., 74, 76, 78, 191; approval only for self-study inferred 175; prohibition only applies to very young girls 22, 206; source for citations of 23; machine-made matzos: controversy 39, 89 Maskhilim: conflict with h.aredi 39, 60 n. 69; educational reforms 2, 33, 189; Hebrew language 46; see also Haskhala Maimonides School (Boston) 197f. Megillah (Purim) 72 messianism 128, 137, 140f., 143, 146–51; H . abad and women’s Torah study 146–49, 229; Schneerson as Messiah 146f., 150; subsumed into H . abad outreach 146 meta-Halacha, 186, 202, 210, 218 Midrashot 189 Mishnah Sotah 3,4 – Eli’ezer–Ben Azai dispute 13, 18, 75, 162; only pertinent laws (Ben Azai), not entire Torah (Eli’ezer) 170; modesty at issue in 45, 76, 105, 171, 215; narrowed to Sotah only 162, 166; no false harmonization 46; as rhetorical model 182; suggests Sanhedrin vote 181 Mishnah Sotah 3,4 – “obligated to teach daughter … ” (ben Azai) 13, 45f.,83, 93; affirmed by Talmud 107; interpretations, medieval 14–17; interpretations, Rishionic 18–21; laws pertinent to women 170; Maimonides MT Talmud Torah 1:13 53; modesty 75, 215; not obligation but general statement about Torah 47; reasons for support 15; rejected by Talmud 85; simple learning to fulfill commandments 74; Sotah passages only 166, 170; in J. Teitelbaum’s exegesis 162–64, 167; text-critical reading 17; validity without Sotah ordeal 20, 83, 162; written Torah 51 Mishnah Sotah 3,4 – “ … teaches her tiflut” (R. Eli’ezer) 13, 55, 93, 164;

265

excepting Halachot pertinent to women 163; forbids study of Mesorah 108; forbids teaching, not every learner 51f.; as general rule 53, 214; grounded in fear for modesty 105; hyperbole clarified [TB Sotah 21b] 15; inapplicable today 16, 35, 78; interpretations, medieval 14–17; interpretations, Rishonic 18–21; and Maimonides 53, 113; sociohistorically bound 35, 78; as strict rule 164, 174, 183; validity questionable 55, 109, 85; see also tiflut Mishneh Torah Talmud Torah 1:13 – initially forbidden, yet study rewarded 18, 21f., 38, 68, 177, 195f.; ab initio acc. to Eli’ezer, post factum b. Azai 53; absolute prohibition inferred 92; contradiction 176, 205; depends on learner’s desire 56, 205; “good advice” 18, 55, 170, 205f.; “most women” not entire class 68, 78, 83; nature of reward 86; reasoning 24; reward greater aiding study of husband and sons 133; study as end vs. means to observance 74 Mishneh Torah Talmud Torah 1:13 – Oral/Written Torah distinction 19–21, 24, 72f. 86, 192; basic instruction in Written Torah permitted 200; conflated with Hakhel 53; exegesis is Oral Torah 73, 80; Oral Torah prohibited 113; Oral Torah sharpens cunning to conceal 171; prohibition only (cf. MT Talmud Torah 1.1) 182; tracing sources 72; Written Torah in depth forbidden 80; Written Torah permission inferred 48f., 51 Modern Orthodoxy 2, 188f., synthesis of Torah and Western values 197 modesty 65, 112, 115, 117f.; gender of teachers 119, 192; laws should be taught women 81; in Sotah dispute 45, 76, 105, 171, 215; see also immodesty mother: bond with child advantage 203; as first educator 43, 104, 112; no duty to teach children 20; role in forming children’s identity 32; woman’s role as 39, 43, 82, 143f., 167, 191, 193 mother teaching daughter (Maharil) 20, 25, 38, 53, 204; difficult ideal 35; has failed 164f.

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

266

General index

National Bible Contest (Israel) 75 nature of women: assumptions about 94; attuned to brevity, 136; aversion to public sphere 66; “beauty and splendor” 197; domestic 66; emotional 72, 94, 194; gentle 65f., 228; impressionable 72; inclined to promiscuity 177; inferiority disproven 219; innocence 13, 169; malleable 72; maternal 116; “no wisdom except at the distaff” [Y. Sotah 3,4 16a] 16, 108; not inferior 208; preoccupied with clothing 169; potentially immodest 165, role in salvation history 143, 147f., 211; soft-hearted 71; softspoken 136; uniqueness of 209; valued positively 131, 214f.; vulnerability 65, 83, 94; weak intellect 9, 45, 67, 81, 83, 163f, 166, 168; weak-willed 71f., 94 neo-Orthodoxy 33, 49, 66, 228 New York: Monsey 175; Board of Jewish Education 198; Kiryat Joel 168 New York City 205; Borough Park 105,178; Crown Heights 131; early 20th c. 103; Lower East Side 103f., 110; Williamsburg 105, 128f., 159 Old Beis Yaakov (Jerusalem) 37, 65 ontology see gender differences, ontological Poland 34f., 39, 51; Cracow 35, 72; girls schools 3, 8 n.17, 31, 56; immigrants . to Israel from 65; Lomzhe (Łomza) 50; Nazi-occupied 146; Orthodox journals 71; Pinsk 53; rabbinic figures in 44, 72; Sochocin 71; Zagrash 67 Polish language 8 n. 17, 31, 56 n. 5 Rashi’s Commentary on the Tanakh: in curriculum 37, 79; forbidden 49, 193f.; permitted, but nothing more advanced 93; should not be taught 80; use questioned 49 Religious Zionism see Zionism, religious ritual slaughter 40, 201; by women 40 Russia: Jews in universities 32; schools in 3, 31f.; Pale of Settlement 33, 228; women in labor market 31 Sanhedrin 178, 180f., 220 Satmar communities: Beis Rachel network 160f.; disunity after death of J. Teitelbaum 168; economic crisis

159; opportunities for women in US 159; origins 158f.; pious and historical books 174; isolationism 183, 229; perceptions of women 169f., 171, 176–78, 183; in Index of Persons see also Teitelbaum, Joel, R. Scribal error: in Mishnah Nidarim 14; supposed in JT Sotah 3:4 19a, 109; in the Tur 21, 53 self-study see independent Torah study Shulh.an Arukh 39, 48, 165, 172, 205; blessing over Torah 51, 77; in mixed gender study group 118; exempt, not forbidden 51; kim li impossible against 181; no blessing over exempt commandment 24f.; Oral Torah forbidden 21f., 91f., 200; prohibition, 69, 88, 171, 182; purity laws 85, 87; reward, but not same as man 68; ruling still valid 76, 166; tiflut 21f.; women not geared toward study 22; Written Torah permitted 48 Shulh.an Arukh Harav 133–35, 172 slave: external impediment to study 90; as vehicle of a fortiori argument 54; may learn, but not be taught 40, 52, 73 stringency 87, 90f.; is itself reform 50; in women’s education 89 the Taz: systematic elementary study of Written Torah 19, 45f., 74, 80f., 85, 172, 200, 204; disagreement with the Bah. 76; Hakhel 47, 173 tiflut 14, 18: “companionship” gender mixing 105; “cunningness” nongendered positive concept 137; “cunningness” to commit sexual sin 14f., 171; dilemma of 194; dual definitions in Tiferet Yisrael 14; early medieval readings 13–15; elastic concept 227; as heresy 66; hidden effects of 80, 181; “licentiousness” 91; inapplicable to study of relevant commandments 42; less in Torah study than ignorance 152; “nonsense” 38, 80; “promiscuity” 162, 170–72; 177; Rishonic readings 18–20; risk in Beis Yaakov 181; risk in secular subjects 44f., 139; risk in self-taught 82; risk only for Oral Torah 18, 55, 80, 91, 103, 139; risk only for unwilling learner 51; rule causes damage, thus null 180; hyperbole clarified 15; as

Downloaded by [University of Florida] at 11:44 18 February 2017

General index sociohistorically bound concept 44f., 179, 191; see also tiflut – “words of folly” tiflut – “words of folly”: as faulty interpretation 18, 217f.; no risk in basic text skills 19; no risk for mature women 23; no risk with modern women 205; no risk in proven selfstudy 174, 180, 204; risk in self-study 81f.; risk in Written Torah, not Oral (scribal error) 21; from woman’s weak intellect 22, 133, 163, 176, 213; see also tiflut the Tur 21, 182; permits intermittent learning 19; commandments relevant to women 25, 196; scribal error 21, 53; citations used to attack Schneerson 138; “words of folly” 164, 174 ulpena (pl. ulpanot) 190, 194, 201, 217 Volozhin yeshiva 41, 52, 63 women as class, as individual exceptions 4, 10, 12, 25, 167f.; as class integral to redemption 149; as class only, no exceptions 84; wise older daughters 76; exceptional skills, desire, good character 24f.; proven desire and skills 52; question avoided via “ad hoc solution” rhetoric 94; women who “set themselves apart” 76; women as class are simpletons 164 see also exceptional women woman as decisor 191, 202, 206f., 209, 217 “women’s canon” 35, 38, in Alter Rebbe 133; in Feinstein 113f., 117f., 123; and H . afez. H . ayyim 78f., 166, 192; in J. Teitelbaum 163, 166; Y. Sotah 3,4 16a – “Let the words of Torah be burned … ” 16, 51, 67, 80, 91, 167, 174; calls for greater stringency 46; if intention not to learn 151f.; most women have neither intent nor intellect 163; scribal error claimed 109; proof text against Beis Yaakov 67; rejection of expanded curriculum 53

267

yeshiva: bound to tradition 209; curriculum 56; day schools 112; discourse 41; feminine voice in 214; girls’ (anecdote) 207; Har-Hamor as “heart of the nation” 210; high schools 190, 194, 201; Litvish model 132, 215; novellae from h.aredi 93; students in H . abad outreach 131; students to advance to kollel 64; Tiferet Yerushalayim (Lower East Side) 110; Tomkhei Temimim network 132; Torat Yisrael afternoon school 197; Volozhin 41, 52, 63; for women in Israel 216–19; woman not to become rosh yeshiva 202; Zionist 188, 216 Yeshiva University 103, 197f. Yiddish language: blessings 160; Bund Yiddishist schools 169; in daily life 184 n. 23; exegesis opaque to women 166, 174; as “jargon” 32, 46; halachic books 39; in h.aredi identity 63; language of instruction 37, 104f., 160, 169; literacy in 32; literature and press 39, 105; mussar books 47; Rashi translation forbidden 175; Torah studied in 47; translation diminishes holiness 46, 174; among US immigrants 103; women’s literature 38 Yoez.et Halacha female “halachic adviser” 189 Ze’enah Ure’enah 174 Zionism: women’s suffrage in 106f.; and Hirshenzon 63, 106; new roles for women in 190; Tarbut educational system 169 Zionism, religious: curriculum 189f., 192f.; growing support for women’s study 191; Kook as leader and central thinker 196; political significance of education debate 189; schools 34, 191; women have more access to education 193; women’s issues slow to arise 207; yeshiva bible study 216; yeshiva dialogue with secular academia 188 “Zionist Halacha Project” 108f.