Home Home / Letter to R. Berkovits about Article Dr…

Correspondence

Apr. 1, 1975

Letter to R. Berkovits about Article Draft (1975)

Women & Judaism
View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

RELATED CONTENT

Article

Letter to Editors of Commonweal About Judaism's Attitude to Women (1965)

To The Editors: Your readers should know that Gertrude Heinzelmann's description of Judaism’s attitude to women ("The Priesthood and Women," January 15, 1965) is bared on a colossal misunderstanding of the Jewish tradition. To say, as she does, that Judaism "consigned women to the harem as dumb beings without rights," is to betray a woeful ignorance of Judaism. "Harems" were unknown in Jewish life, even in the days when polygamy had not yet been legally proscribed. Women were never deemed "dumb beings"; they were con- sidored the equal of men in value, though different functions were assigned to each sex. And several tractates of the Talmud ( a "Pharisee" work) are devoted to safeguarding the personal and proper­ty רights of women long before the rest of the world thought it necessary.Women, contrary to Miss Heinzelmann’s assertions, were quite capable of initiating legal action on their own. Their exclusion from certain observances was not a prohibition but a release from duty, and then not from all religious duties, but only from positive commandments that must be observed at certain times. The Miehnah’s limitations on con ersation with women are not, as the author suggest an indication of feminine inferiority but a reflection of high moral standards; and the limitation applies not to "conversation" as such but to sihah, frivolous add idle talk. Similarly, the separation of men and women in the synagogue is a reflection not of the value of women but of the moral context from which prayer must issue and in which it becomes most meaningful. The remark that women were "herded into the loft" is pejorati e and unenlightening.Your author ascribes to Judaism the Idea that sex Implies uncleanness and wickedness, and thus "blames" Judaism for Paul’s notions on the subject. The facts are just the opposite: the Torah’s first command ment is procreation. The blessings pronounced at a wedding ceremony affirms the positive Jewish approach to sex and marriage.It la a pity that …
Women & Judaism

Correspondence

Letter from R. Weiss about Article on Conservative Amendments to the Ketubah (1955)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, As I already indicated to you over the phone, your article on the Ketubah pleased me very much for its keen analysis, good reasoning, and clear presentation. Nevertheless, in response to Rabbi Hollander’s request, I am writing down my comments for your consideration before giving to publication. We must make certain that our opponents find no ground to argue, Halachically. Therefore our arguments must stand the test of the most strict scrutiny. Most of the comments contained here do not refute your main thesis, and adjustments to correct them can be made. On page 2 you speak of the ancient law which made a man sole and complete owner of his wife’s property and that it alone brought about the institution of the Kesubah.
Women & Judaism

Correspondence

Letter to Editors of Commonweal about Judaism's Attitude to Women (1965)

To the Editors: Your readers should know that Gertrude Heinzelmann’s description of Judaism’s attitude to women ("The Priesthood and Women," January 15, 1965) is based on a colossal misunderstanding of the Jewish tradition. To say, as she does, that Judaism "consigned women to the harem as dumb beings without rights," is to betray a woeful ignorance of Judaism. "Harems" were unknown in Jewish life, even in the days when polygamy had not yet been legally proscribed. Women were never deemed "dumb beings"; they were considered the equal of men in value, though different functions were assigned to each sex. And several tractates of the Talmud (a "Pharisee" work) are devoted to safeguarding the personal and property rights of women long before the rest of the world thought it necessary.Women, contrary to Miss Heinzelmann’s assertions, were quite capable of initiating legal action on their own. Their exclusion from certain observances was not a prohibition but a release from duty, and then not from all religious duties, but only from positive commandments that must be observed at certain times. The Mishnah’s limitations on conversation with women are not, as the author suggests, an indication of feminine inferiority but a reflection of high moral standards; and the limitation applies not to "conversation" as such but to *sihah*, frivolous and idle talk. Similarly, the separation of men and women in the synagogue is a reflection not of the value of women but of the moral context from which prayer must issue and in which it becomes most meaningful. The remark that women were "herded into the loft" is pejorative and unenlightening.Your author ascribes to Judaism the idea that sex implies uncleanness and wickedness, and thus "blames" Judaism for Paul’s notions on the subject. The facts are just the opposite: the Torah’s first commandment is procreation. The blessings pronounced at a wedding ceremony affirm the positive Jewish approach to sex and marriage.It is a pity that an…
Women & Judaism