I am qualified to speak on this subject because of the happy circumstance that there are as many women as men in my ancestry. Freud maintained that in the natural psychological makeup of the human race there is inherently a striving or battle between male and female. In addition, in any society, especially a competitive society, there will always be a tendency for friction between the sexes. Ancient societies were generally directed and dominated by one of the sexes. Some of them were matriarchal, dominated by the women or mother. Most societies of ancient days were patriarchal. Our own society was originally patriarchal. It is now in a state of transition. The whole problem of “How equal should women be?” is peculiar to modern society, emerging, as it is, from a completely patriarchal culture to a new kind of civilization – perhaps partially matriarchal. The whole concept of women’s rights is no more than about fifty years old. The problem was brought into sharp focus in World War I, when the men were away on the battlefield fighting, and women were called upon to serve their places in industry and offices, as a sort of second best. No one really thought that they would prove anywhere near as capable as men. They were, however, surprised by the fact that in many of these temporary positions, the women proved to be superior to the male. From that day on, American women have been getting more and more rights. Today there are two and a half million more women voters than men voters. One third of the American labor force – about twenty-two million – are women. We are today, insofar as the position of women in society, in a state of flux. And the stress and strain of the transition period is having its definite effect upon all members of our civilization. If you will excuse the metaphor, the pattern of the American woman’s position in society has been set – but the basting thread has not yet been taken out. Alterations still must and will be made.The problem today in A…

Rabbi Lamm considers the significance of Jewish education for women in the modern world.

The most Jewish way to begin this historic conference is, appropriately, with “thanksgiving” – to the Almighty שהחיינו וקימנו והגיענו לזמן הזה. Now, that is an interesting ברכה. Two of the three verbs are self-explanatory: שהחיינו, He let us live, despite all persecutions and material obstacles. והגיענו, He allowed us to reach this day, overcoming all cultural, spiritual, and psychological pressures on us. But most interesting is the middle verb: וקימנו, usually translated as "He let us exist." But if we already say that He let us live and reach, why is it necessary to add "exist?" It has been suggested that the word is a halakhic term. וקימנו comes from קיום, and in the Halakha the word for affirmation or authentication of a שטר or document is called קיום שטרות, whereby witnesses testify to the authenticity of the signatures on a document. Hence, וקימנו means, "He has justified and authenticated our approach, our mission, our דרך.* For the last 50 or more years, savants and sages, sociologists and social philosophers and community "machers," have predicted the imminent demise of Orthodox Judaism and the disappearance of Orthodox Jews as a significant part of the North American Jewish community. But we are to say, "We are here!" By the grace of the Almighty, וקימנו, He has, through history, vindicated our essential outlook, and so we are very much alive if beset by problems, very much vigorous if more than a bit contentious. And what greater reason to thank Him than for legitimating who and what we are. And, indeed, it is appropriate to ask two questions, to which I intend to address myself this evening: First, who are we – we who have convened and are participating in this conference? And second, what do we want and why have we gathered here at this juncture of our history? Who are we? First, we are Jews; and we are joined by a common history and common national and ethnic experiences to all other Jews, as partners in what the Rav זצ"ל has called the ברית גורל, t…

בזמן מתן תורה: "כיה תיאמר לבית תגקיב ותגיד לבני ישראל"...רש"י: לבית יעקב - אלו הנשים: מעמד הנשים בתורה שנוי במחלוקת ובשיקולים עדינים The following is based on my (as yet unpublished paper), “The Different Blessings for Men and for Women ’’—May 29, 2008 A new explanation of שלא עשני אשה. The problem with this blessing is well known: it is, on the face of it, clearly anti-feminine. And there seems to be no reason for it! And what of the woman’s blessing - שעשני כרצונו?The classical interpretation by Abudrahm is not completely satisfying, but at least it addresses the issue fairly: that a woman has less positive commandments than a man does. This seems structurally reasonable, because the preceding blessings can be explained by the same rationale: שלא עשני גוי and שלא עשני עבד are also understandable as referring to the number of Mitzvot each category requires. However, this itself raises questions about fairness.A new explanation of שלא עשני אשה. The problem with this blessing is well known: it is, on the face of it, clearly anti-feminine. And there seems to be no reason for it! And what of the woman’s blessing - שעשני כרצונו?The classical interpretation by Abudrahm is not completely satisfying, but at least it addresses the issue fairly: that a woman has less positive commandments than a man does. This follows with stylistic logic from the previous two blessings, שלא עשני גוי and שלא עשני עבד - each is limited in the number of commandmens to which he is obligated. However, this itself raises questions about the essential fairness, especially with regard to the two genders.What follows is a simple explanation based on the work of Rabbi Zadok, the “Kohen of Lublin.” The latter, in his צדקת הצדיק, refers to a passage in the Talmud (ברכות ל"ה ע"ב) attempting to reconcile two apparently convicting verses — one that maintains that ועמדו זרים ורעו צאנכם, “Strangers will arise and take care of your sheep,” and the other which says that ואספת דגנך ותירושך ויצהריך, “You shall…