I was reading the beginning of Shmot where we first learn about the Jews’ slavery and Moshe’s birth. It is interesting to ask ourselves: why does the story start here? Why are the details of Moshe’s birth significant to the story of the Jewish people’s redemption from Israel?
I think the specific vignettes are very telling; let me share arc of the story with you. We start with the midwives who disobey Pharaoh, making excuses as to why they did not kill the Jewish babies as they are born. Then we are told of Moshe’s parents’ decision to marry, and his mother’s hiding of Moshe for three months, after which Miriam guards over him as he floats down the Nile. Lastly, Pharaoh’s daughter finds Moshe and saves him.
We can read this as simple narrative describing how Moshe is born but I think each vignette is carefully chosen. Each character (all women) – the midwives, Moshe’s mother, Miriam, and the daughter of Pharaoh- each make a decision which goes against the grain or is downright risky in the name of morality or saving a life. Starting with the midwives who outright disobey Pharaoh’s command to the daughter of Pharaoh who knowingly raises a Jewish boy, destined for death, right under her father’s nose.
This trajectory all comes into focus when the next story in the text tells of Moshe’s first moral and risky decision. Moshe steps out of the palace of Pharaoh, identifies with his “brothers,” and kills an Egyptian who has been beating a Jewish slave. The next day when he witnesses two Jews fighting, he also tries to get involved (though perhaps verbally and without violence). Moshe has clearly taken a risk in acting on behalf of the Jewish slave, because he flees when he realizes that Pharaoh knows about his activism.
Why tell this of all stories about Moshe’s youth? He flees and is clearly not ready for the yoke of leadership for which God will pick him out. But these initial gut reactions- the attempt to protect the slave from the overseer and the desire to stop two Jews from fighting- are the necessary first steps to moral leadership. He could have remained safe in the palace but he takes a risk both moral and brotherly for his people.
The acts of brave women lead directly to Moshe’s moral urge. Without the many risks of the enablers in his life- the midwives, his mother, sister and adopted mother- he would not be afforded the chance to be a leader. Neither would he had the chance to live, nor would he have the perspective of a prince stepping out of the palace with the prerogative to take a risk on moral grounds to save his people. The redemption from Israel as a whole can be seen as starting with the many small acts of resistance, which together were able to produce a leader who could leave the Jews out of slavery.
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
Here is an insight on Yom Agunah from Rena Sherbill:
This past Thursday, March 20, was Yom Agunah (Agunah Day). On Wednesday, March 19, in recognition of this day, there was a protest march from the Beit Din (Jewish Court) in Jerusalem to the Knesset. Agunah, literally a "chained" woman, is a term applied to women whose husbands refuse to give them a get (bill of divorce).
For almost three years, this term has applied to me. After countless meetings at the Beit Din, and between our two lawyers, the process of divorce is still dragging on, despite the fact that we have lived apart all this time and that each of us has dated other people. This situation, that men are granted the power to withhold a divorce, without a doubt mocks the entire halachic system as antiquated and misogynistic.
The way the Beit Din tells it, however, is that women and women's organizations are simply misleading the public with false statistics. In fact Arutz Sheva has run two articles on this topic, both times only quoting one source – the Beit Din itself. The article states, "In 2007, an Israeli survey revealed that there are only 180 cases of refusing-get husbands including 69 documented agunah cases. In contrast, there are 190 cases in which the wife refuses to give the husband a divorce." To hear them tell it, not only are men being refused divorces, but there are even more of them than women (this source is also quoted in the "agunah" entry on Wikipedia). How can this be? Are the myriad women's organizations who have taken up the cause of agunot misinformed? Or worse, are they padding the facts to get their point across?
Contrastingly, how can a so-called news organization write an article on an inflammatory and controversial topic like agunot while only quoting one side (that of the Beit Din)?
To put these matters in perspective, I would like to take note of what Dr. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari said this past July at the Kolech (Religious Women's Forum) conference in Jerusalem. Dr. Halperin-Kaddari, director of the Center for the Advancement of Women's Status in the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, presented statistics that compared how the religious courts (Batei Din) calculate the number of agunot versus the way the women's organizations do. For instance, the Batei Din do not include in their category of men witholders, any couple who is engaged in "[disagreement over] mezonot (child support)," meaning where the woman is asking for child support and the man refuses to give it. The women's organizations' statistics take into account that many of these mezonot cases are actually cases of men who are offering a get only if the woman will give up her right to child support. The Batei Din allow this blackmail to go on, and cover up this fact by using a misleading title for the category that makes it sound as if the two sides are equal.
From my experience in this process, I can attest to the fact that this practice runs rampant. My ex-husband used the get as a bargaining chip in a multitude of ways. Just two examples are when he said he wouldn't give me a get unless the amount of child support was lowered (even though the Court mandated the lowest legal amount of child support), or unless I gave up my right to appeal to the Civil Court in matters of visitation and child support.
Another disparity in statistic collection between these two bodies is a result of the Beit Din leaving out any case where there have been no court hearings for six months or more. By their very nature, most of these agunah cases drag on indefinitely, which makes this omission a glaring one.
Another article, this time coming from a Haredi website called the Shema Yisrael Torah network, also makes its case. Here is a quote, "The distorted claims of National-Religious (modern-orthodox) women's groups that have joined Reform circles to wage a joint campaign against the Rabbinical batei din and the dayanim who act in accordance with halacha, on account of the alleged "thousands of agunot" and "ongoing foot dragging in resolving their plight" have been exposed as grossly exaggerated and misleading and in fact, altogether groundless." Misleading? Let's see, first the author attempts to shame these Modern Orthodox women by putting them in the same category as (gasp!) Reform circles, thereby juxtaposing them with the dayanim (judges) who they say are acting in accordance with halacha.
Liberal readers might immediately write off this source because it comes from a Haredi perspective, but it is the Haredim who are in charge of the Batei Din, and thereby able to dictate the status of these women. Because there is no civil divorce in Israel (a divorce can only be granted by the Batei Din), it is imperative for those fighting for change to educate people (especially Halachic, Religious Jews) on the gross inequality of the Jewish court system, as it pertains to agunot. As many in the Religious world see it, the Rabbis are acting according to the letter of the law. And, in fact, they are. Just as people claim that they murder or steal in G-d's name, and are able to select Biblical quotes in their defense. What is missing here, and what these people are failing to see, is the complete disregard for the spirit of the law. In this day and age, is it still "lawful" to keep women chained to a marriage they want out of?
Furthermore, it is not only the judges or the Haredi system who are to blame. It is everyone who upholds this system. For instance, I know of two fairly progressive Rabbis who once worked on my behalf trying to convince my ex-husband to give me a get. But in the end, they stopped being a part of things in fear that their names would be blemished in the "Torah World" because of their involvement in my case. There are also many people who think it is lashon hara (slander) to tell people when a man is withholding a get, when in fact it is deemed necessary to do so by Jewish Law. Many people, even ones who know that the system is outdated, fear going up against the religious establishment because they feel that no matter what, the Rabbis should be the ones to make change, not the people, and certainly not the women. I was even at a Shabbat meal, where on the topic of agunot, one very learned woman said, "I know it's a terrible thing, but the Rabbis aren't heartless, they have wives and daughters, they must have good reason for not changing the laws."
This woman, who I otherwise respect, has it all wrong. In this time between Purim and Pesach, where we are bookended by Esther and Miriam – two strong, independent women who took it upon themselves to literally change the course of Jewish History, it is especially salient for us to realize our role and abilities to create our own fate. It is not cynicism that leads me to say this, or even feminism, but rather, and quite simply, humanism -- the Rabbis are not changing the laws because it is a patriarchal institution, and it does not behoove them to take the power out of men's hands. Despite my experience, I do however, consider myself very lucky. Because of the strong support of my family and friends, and because I have been blessed with strength and independence, I was able to have my own divorce ritual. Obviously, I still would not be able to get married again according to halacha, but I consider myself divorced, and anyway because of what I have borne witness to, I would not get married under the auspices of the Rabbinate again. However, there are at least hundreds of women who live in strictly Religious communities, usually with a number of young children, and typically the victims of some sort of abuse, who must endure years of being chained to their marriage. In fact, I remember reading two summers ago, how a mother of four in Mea Shearim committed suicide by jumping off her balcony. The stated reason for her suicide was her inability to cope with the strain of being an agunah. It is in our power to ensure that no woman anywhere feels that kind of hopeless desperation again.
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
Wednesday was Yom Ha'agunah - a day set to raise awareness about and push to solve the problem of agunot. There was a protest in Jerusalem and some press here in Israel. Sara Breger wrote in Haaretz that the Prenuptial is the only solution we have right now; while this was the official message of the ICAR rally, some of the voices I heard while marching to the Knesset were far more disheartened with the entire institution of marriage as it exits today- the reigns of power to consummate and dissolve marriage being solely in the man's hands. Other's still pray that husbands and Rabbis will find their moral core, while the Toanot Beit Din, women who act as lawyers in the religious courts, fight day in and day out to solve each individual case that comes their way. How long will we need to have a Yom Haagunah, there is something to stable about commemorating a whole day to an issue we hope will not be here next year.
This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.
An article I wrote about Esther's suit to make the Megillah part of the canon was posted on Matan's webcite in honor of the month of Adar. I wrote about the underlying moral responsibility that comes along with our communal memory of Purim.
I was excited to read that Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rabbi Mark Angel are starting an alternative body to the RCA- The Rabbinical Counsel of America. It will be a coalition and network of Rabbis who are actually Modern Orthodox and eventually will include an alternate Beit Din system as well.
I don’t think the RCA or their Beit Din is all that terrible, it’s not even all that right wing. However, the established Jewish community has consistently stymied the growth of more modern Rabbis. The graduates of Yeshivah Choveveh Torah, the “Open Orthodox Yeshiva,” started by Ai Weiss, have not been allowed to join the RCA, and National Young Israel has even made moves to keep more liberal Rabbis out of their shuls despite the fact that many individual Young Israel’s may be seeking exactly this kind of leadership.
I studied for few years at Choveveh Torah (YCT), in a Talmud class for undergraduates at nearby Barnard and Columbia. So I feel comfortable saying that YCT is refreshingly open and thoughtful about the challenges of modernity, while still being strongly Orthodox and rather traditional in the grand scheme of things.
If RCA and Young Israel, and other institutions of the like, had allowed their Rabbis to quietly join the ranks of the official Orthodox Rabbinical establishment, they probably would have been a minor voice, which slowly widened the spectrum of opinions. Now that the Orthodox world excluded these voices, they have a full out rebellion on their hands and competing institutions.
I only hope that this new Rabbinic Fellowship can find a way to include female leaders as well. I know that YCT is not ready to ordain women, but Modern Orthodox women are studying more, women teachers’ scholarship is approaching the level of Rabbis, and many shuls have opened up communal roles such as Madricha Ruchanit. It would be disappointing if the new Rabbinic Fellowship recreates the atmosphere of the exclusionary old boys club.
It’s been a while, but I’m back...
In today’s sugya (9a) the story of David and Batshevah is hinted at. The gemarah is trying to ascertain what kind of proof is necessary to accuse a woman of adultery and thereby make her forbidden to both her husband and the man with who she had the affair.
The gemarah is all tied up in knots trying to prevent any woman from slipping through the cracks. Specifically, the beginning of Ketuboth is interested in the case of a woman whose husband claims she was not a virgin on their first night together. But is his subjective experience enough to prove that she slept with someone of her own free will during the time of their official engagement, meaning that she cheated?
In comparison to the flimsy claim, “I found her opening opened,” the gemarah cites the case of sotah, a system that demands several objective proofs in order to convict. A man who is jealous of his wife, must warn her about a specific man with whom she then secludes herself in front of witnesses. He then takes her to the temple for a miraculous test, which proves her innocence or guilt.
The story of King David and his lover Batsheva is brought as the source of the requirement for warning and witnesses. But anyone who remembers this story knows that Uriah, Batsheva’s husband, was not jealous of his wife, nor did he warn her about sleeping with the King, nor were there any witnesses. Why in the world is their story brought as the source?
“Ahh…” the gemarah replies, true, in the case of David and Batsheva, there were no witnesses and no warning and therefore after the act of adultery Batsheva was indeed allowed to return to her husband (David tried to bring her husband home from war in time so that he will think her pregnancy was due Uriah himself) and she is allowed to marry David after the affair. The absence of witnesses and warning is the reason they were allowed to stay together, and proves that these missing elements are essential in prosecution.
This sounds like a modern soap opera, or a how -to book on how to have an affair and not get caught. Why does the gemarah invoke this story, which only might teach about proof though its absence? Not very convincing.
The gemarah secretly is dying to tell this story, despite it’s inappropriateness, and at the same time it can’t. While it is obvious from the context and from later commentators that the gemarah is referring to David and Batsheva, the gemarah simply refers to “Maashe Sheaya,” a story that once happened. Why the secrecy?
I’m leaving you with questions today: Why does the Talmud want to tell the story of David and Batsheva so badly that it brings it here as very weak proof? And if it wanted to tell their tale so badly, why disguise it as “a story that once happened"? Maybe I’ll think of an answer tomorrow.
I never though Rabbi Herschel Shachter of YU would be called a Feminist!
Apparently ORA and the Rabbis at a recent rally for agunot are doing a good job. If the charedi world is ranting about you on their blogs - you are probably making them anxious and making a dent. More power to you.
Looking forward to "Teaching the Rabbis" a conference I will be attending next week at Brandeis. I'm excited to be chairing a session as well. Will blog about anything new and exciting that catches my attention. Check out the schedule. If you are jealous- they are supposed to be putting a lot of the sessions up online.
We learn really slowly- but sometimes when you read the same daf over and over again it becomes like those pictures where a hologram jumps out of them.
Our topic is sex. And it is very tangible as the gemarah circles closer to the intercourse itself on daf 5-6. In asking whether losing your virginity (or breaking the hymen) is allowed on Shabbat, we are all lead to picture the actual act of sex. And lo and behold the gemarah is filled with phallic images.
The detour right before the Shabbat question is all about how the body is designed perfectly. It says if you are about to hear lashon hara you should put your finger in your ear. This is why your fingers and ears are shaped the way they are, says the gemarah. I couldn’t understand what this was doing here, until I read the gemarah for the enth time and it jumped out at me as a serious phallic image.
Then the gemarah begins working through Shabbat laws and how they relate to breaking the hymen. We are being led to imagine all the different problems on Shabbat - blood being released from the womb (a strange understanding of why some women bleed when they loose their virginity) or an opening being formed, a wound being inflicted. This section really leaves you confused envisioning sex, trying to figure out how the woman is shaped, where thy hymen is and where the Rabbis thought it was.
The gemarah compares our case to another Shabbat case, that of stopping up a hole in a barrel with a rag to prevent spillage. On the one hand this case struck me as inappropriate because we were focusing on creating an opening, letting out blood, or making a wound, not soaking a rag in fluid and squeezing it out which is the focus of this case. While we might have expected a case that had to do with wounding or breaking, this case of stuffing a barrel is surprisingly related as another super phallic image.
I am left wondering if the very act of sex is potentially questionable on Shabbat – not the breaking of the hymen alone but the penetration. The idea of penetrating a woman, of changing her status through the first act of sex, perhaps even exertion on the day of rest is one that raises questions about Shabbat.
Or perhaps the rabbis were just subconsciously using images that mirror the penetration they are envisioning.
I recently returned to the end of Ketuboth and was thinking about the movement or process of the gemarah. On daf 100b, after discussing the problematic case of a husband or wife who wants to make aliyah against the will of the other partner, the gemarah moves into discussion of Israel and how important it is. “One who lives outside of Israel is like one who has no God.” In some way this is an explanation as to why making aliyah is such a vital value that it is worth breaking up a marriage over, as if it were agreed upon from the start of the marriage.
As the gemarah is wont to do, one link leads to the next, and from the value of Israel we move to a story about Rabbi Zara, who wants to move to Israel, as he attempts to avoid bumping into his teacher Rabbi Yehuda, who believes such a move is forbidden. Their story is similar to the couple who are fighting over where to live; in the first, two spouses are trying to force their opinion on the other and in the latter a teach and student enter into a battle of wits to ascertain whether Rabbi Zeira is indeed allowed to leave his teacher and his yeshiva to go to Israel.
The discussion between the two Talmudic scholars brings us deep into yet a third related topic. The Rabbis duel over possible interpretations for a verse in Song of Songs “Oh maidens of Jerusalem, swear to me that you will not arouse love until it bursts (until it’s ready).” This mysterious verse is used by Rabbi Yehudah to prove that one is not allowed to move to Israel until God brings us back, until He sanctions the reunion- the end of the exile. Rebbi Zera believes an individual may make Aliyah, but the verse forbids the Jews as a Nation to end the exile by moving in mass to Israel.
Because the verse is repeated thee times and the poetic language speaks in double repetition there are in fact 6 swears that relate to the Jew’s suspended experience of exile according to Rabbi Zera. 1) The Jews sear not to recapture Israel, 2) they promise not to rebel against the non Jews in their exile 3) the non Jewish lords in exile swear not to oppress the Jews too much, 4)The Jews won’t reveal the end 5) they won’t push off the end, and 6) they won’t reveal the secret.
Some of these swears are as mysterious as it gets, but over all it shows a pull and tug between the Jews and God. It is no coincidence that Song of Songs is invoked here and though one might think we are far away from the original husband and wife in question we are in fact right where we began. Just as a wife may try to force her husband to make aliyah, the Jews want to make aliyah against God’s will. Even though it is clear to us in general and from these swears that God is in control, that the exile will not end until he says so- he cannot actually stop the Jews from going back to Israel. He has to rely on an oath and the hope that the Jews will keep their word. For all that God is in control of our destiny, the Jews keep pushing back, testing the limits always trying to reveal the end and bring it closer; moreover- according to these swears we have the power to delay the end as well.
If the process, the sugya brings itself to a new place and yet right back to where we started; it also brought me to a few other texts. One is a passage of Heschel in “Man is not Alone” where he says that our relationship with God is both “ultimate commitment” as well as “ultimate reciprocity.” In the context of this gemarah this means that we are committed to keeping our word and God is committed to protecting us in the exile, but just as he exercises a certain amount of power over the Jews, we reciprocally push back to have a say in our future. The warring couple as well have a relationship built on commitment, meaning if one half wants to move to Israel the other must follow; but also a relationship of reciprocity, whereas if the relationship cannot possibly stand the move then the other cannot be dragged- they must divorce if they’ve lost the element of reciprocity in the relationship.
I was also moved to think of this poem by Adrienne Rich. I would love to hear if any of you readers out there see the connections in this poem- or if I’m just on one of those frustrating Talmudic tangents.
“Trying to Talk with a Man”
by Adrienne Rich
Out in this desert we are testing bombs,
that’s why we came here.
Sometimes I feel an underground river
forcing its way between deformed cliffs
an acute angle of understanding
moving itself like a locus of the sun
into this condemned scenery.
What we’ve had to give up to get here –
whole LP collections, films we starred in
playing in the neighborhoods, bakery windows
full of dry chocolate0filled Jewish cookies,
the language of love-letters, of suicide notes,
afternoons on the riverbank
pretending to be children
Coming out to this desert
we meant to change the face of
driving among dull green succulents
walking at noon in this ghost town
Surrounded by a silence
that sounds like the silence of this place
except that it came with us
and is familiar
and everything we were saying until now
was an effort to blot it out –
coming out here we are up against it
Out here I feel more helpless
with you than without you
you mention the danger
and list the equipment
we talk of people caring for each other
in emergencies – laceration, thirst –
but you look at me like an emergency
Your dry heat feels like power
your eyes are stars of a different magnitude
they reflect lights that spell out: EXIT
when you get up and pace the floor
talking of the danger
as if it were not ourselves
as if we were testing anything else
