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 …

The feminist movement of recent years has, inevitably, turned its attention to the Jewish tradition. The critique of Judaism – specifically, of the role of Jewish women in Jewish law – has frequently been more hysterical than historical, more apoplectic than apodictic. The millennial Jewish concern for the protection of woman's welfare and dignity in a world where these were not at all taken for granted, was simply ignored or, worse, stood on its head. Nothing that the Jewish tradition had to say about women, it seemed, could be right. If a statement was openly misogynistic, it was taken to be characteristic of all Jews at all times. If it was clearly in favor of women, it was accused of being patronizing and condescending. Thus, ad- vacates of the Jewish tradition were caught in a "double bind," and there was no opening for rational discourse and analysis.Not all the criticism, of course, was part of this feminist frenzy. Some of the liberationist animadversions were measured and thoughtful. Even those who struck out wildly at almost every Jewish position were usually motivated by genuine concern and perplexity.The action elicited an equivalent reaction. Defenders of the tradition either shouted back, matching decibel for decibel, or acted as if there was nothing to discuss. Whatever, the rhetoric was more notable for its temperature than for its luminositv.The present volume by Dr. Moshe Meiselman is, to my knowledge, the first full treatment of the subject by a staunch advocate of the Jewish tradition, presented in a manner both thoughtful and scholarly. One need not agree with every posi- tion taken by the author to be grateful to him for his reasoned analysis and for the multitude of sources he has gathered to support his interpretations. But it is not agreement with hisJewish Woman in Jewish Lawposition that is important, as much as the opportunity to hear the quiet and reasoned analysis of a young Jewish scholar who knows his material, who has engaged the co…

One of the defining characteristics of the Jewish religious personality is tzeniut which may approximately be translated as modesty. Normally, the concept of tzeniut is discussed in rather technical terms: how low or how high a hemline, the length of sleeves, the form of dress, the number of square millimeters of skin that may be exposed, and so on. Indeed, these are important issues, but they are aspects or details of tzeniut, not its heart. It would be a pity to limit our understanding of tzeniut to that which can be measured by a ruler, while ignoring its conceptual matrix. What should concern us is the world view of Judaism that informs the concept and the practice of tzeniut, an exceedingly important Jewish principle and value which touches the fundamentals of our faith. In seeking the broader implications of tzeniut and its universal context, we must explore three dimensions of tzeniut. The first of these is the principle of kedushah, holiness. The Torah says, "You shall be holy." The Sages of the Talmud comment: hevu perushim min ha-arayot, you shall separate yourselves from immorality. The commandment thus concerns immorality in its strictly sexual significance. The more one transcends his corporeal nature, expressed in illicit sensuality, the more one is able to achieve personal sanctity or kedushah. How does tzeniut relate to kedushah? I heard an explanation from my illustrious teacher and mentor, Rabbi Joseph. B. Soloveitchik, zekher tzaddik li'verakhah. The "Rav," as he was known, offers this trenchant insight: kedushah thrives in he'elem, in hiddenness, in obscurity, not be'giluy, openness. (Indeed, the Torah's euphemism for illicit sexual intercourse is giluy arayot, the exposure or baring to public view of nakedness.) Hiddenness is what links the two concepts of modesty and holiness. The holiest place in the world for Judaism is the kodesh ha-kodashim, the Holy of Holies in the Beit Hamikdash, the Temple in Jerusalem. The holiest person during the se…

סוגיית שוויון הזכויות הינה נושא טעון ושנוי במחלוקת, ובפרט בנוגע למקומה בעולם ההלכה ובמסורה התורנית. כל נסיון לברר את שיטת היהדות בנושא זה, סופו לפגוע בפוליטיקה של הליברליזם, ובעיקר הפמיניזם, וכן בנטיייה השמרנית שרואה בתפקידה לשמור על שלמות העבר. ובכלל שכמעט בלתי אפשרי למצוא אדם שאין לו דעה קדומה. כל המבקש להכנס בעובי הקורה בעניין זה צפוי להתקפה מכל עבר. אולם, גם אם לא נזכה להגיע לאמת, לפחות נבקש אותה, ונסתפק בתיאור מספר שיטות ודעות שמתוך כולן נוכל לשפוך מעט אור על סוגיית שוויון הזכויות.שורשו של רעיון שוויון הזכויות בתרבות המערב של העידן המודרני בצרפת. עקרון ה- Egalite סובר שכל בני האד□ שווים, ואין מעמדות בחברה—זוהי מורשת המהפכה הצרפתית של המאה השמונה-עשרה, אשר באמצעות האמנציפציה השפיעה על הקונגרס של ברלין כמאה שני□ לאחר מכן, ואת פירותיה אנו קוצרים גס כיום, ואולי באופן משמעותי יותר מבעבר.באירופה הצליח שוויון הזכויות להתקבל על רוב הוגי הדעות למורת רוחה של הכנסיה הקתולית. גם רוב ראשי האיסלאם דחו אותה מכל וכל. בארה״ב שימש שוויון הזכויות כאבן פינה לתנועה לזכויות האזרח שזכתה לשחרר את המיעוטים מהאפליה שסבלו ממנה במשך הרבה שנים ולהכניסם לחברב שלפני כן היתה סגורה בפניהם. וגם בעולם המחשבה היכתה השוויונות שרשים עמוקים והביאה לפיתוחם של הרלטיביזם המוסרי והאוטונומיה האישית אשר שניהם אינם לפי רוח היהדות.בשנת 1857 הציע הסופר הצרפתי אלקסיס דה טוקביל Alexis de)(Tocqueville שרעיון שוויון הזכויות הולם את היהדות, מכיוון שהיא דת מונותאיסטית, כלומר, משום שיש רק א-ל אחד, גם בריותיו שווים זה לזה ללא אפלייה ביניהם—וכדברי הנביא," הלוא אב אחד לכלנו הלוא אל אחד בראנו" (מלאכי פרק ב). אבל באירופה המערבית גברה ידם של בעלי האליטיזם והם ראו בשוויון הזכויות את אחד הפירות הבאושים של הדמוקרטיה השוללת את ההצטיינות. גם הוגי הדעות המוסלמים דחו מכל וכל את השוויונות יחד עם הדמוקרטיה והאוניברסליות הזרות לרוח האיסלם המקורית. במדה מסוימת, התנגדות זו לשוויון זכויות התעוררה בהתקפת האיסלאם על מדינת ישראל ועל ארה״ב, כאשר הוענק לה התואר ״השטן הגדול״. בשנת 2003, קם נשיא מלזיה בקהל של חמישים ושבעה מנהיגי דת האיסלמיים והטיח דבריםכנגד עם ישראל: ״ אנחנו מתמודדים נגד עם שיודע לחשוב. הם שרדו 2000 שנהשל פוגרומים לא באמצע…

The role of women in Jewish religious life has become more problematic since the Emancipation. Heretofore, observant Jewish women, like their male counterparts, accepted the whole of the Rabbinic tradition without much complaint. Piety demanded of them to practice the Halakha without question. To this day, large numbers of Orthodox women, many of them beneficiaries of higher education and participants in the whole array of professional and business opportunities available to women in our society, regularly recite certain passages from our sacred literature without experiencing any major conflict or discomfort that other women might consider offensive. But as the status of women in our society has continued to improve, many women’s traditional social position and their functioning in religious life have become embroiled in controversy. With the opening of the Jewish community to the new movements in the larger society, there were occasional grumbles by individuals. One such case was the famous sparring, in the early part of the last century, between the second wife of R. Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, the famous Netziv, and her nephew, R. Barukh Epstein, author of Torah Temimah. The aunt was a highly intelligent autodidact who was bitter at being locked out of an intensive Torah education, and the nephew defended the status quo. But this was an exception, not the rule. Eventually, however, this was followed by widespread questioning and even organized challenge by Jewish feminists, including some of their more vocal Orthodox members. The subject as a whole has been written about extensively, sometimes superficially, but often with genuine sensitivity and halakhic justification. In this essay we shall narrow our scope and deal only with three specific and nettlesome problems relating to the role of women in Halakha, and some of the controversial issues emanating from them. First, we will discuss the different obligatory recitations prescribed for men and women among the Morning…