There certainly are differences between the sexes. If not, we would not have separate terms for “man” and “woman”. In the physical dimension we note this through the use of the expression “male and female.” No one disputes the physiological differences between the sexes. Our dilemma concerns the psychological and cognitive aspects of life. Yet here too we do distinguish between man and woman in our terminology; moreover our experience indicates that there are differences.
Our lives and our relationship to reality is conducted in two planes: the rational and the experiential-psychological. The first is universal and uniform; it is based on logical rules independent of the characteristics of the individual. The second is grounded in a subjective impression which depends on the individual makeup of each particular person. When we are using the rules of logic, there are no significant distinctions between man and women. Scientific logic is identical for all; male and female scientists all follow the same rules, and researchers in biology or physics carry out their research in the same way, regardless of their gender. On the other hand there are differences between men and women regarding the experiential and emotive aspects of life. Personal relationships are based on the fact that men and women experience things from different perspectives and each is able to bring a unique contribution. I should clarify that when I speak here of gender differences , I am speaking of archetypes and general trends, from which there certainly are exceptions.
An example of these differences, regarding parenthood, is to be found in a touching passage in Family Redeemed by Rav Soloveitchik zt’l:
“The man called his wife’s name Havah, because she was the mother of all living things (hai)”(Breishit 3,20). But man’s name is not identified with fatherhood; he is called adam or ish but not av. His role as a father was not portrayed symbolically by his name, while Eve’s role as a mother was. (p. 105)
For woman, motherhood is an expression of her identity, but the man is Adam (from the Hebrew for soil), conqueror of the earth. This difference in the attitude toward parenthood is exemplified further in the stories of Ya’akov and Rachel, and of Hana and Elkana.
Hazal were well aware of these differences, which are reflected in various pronouncements such as the words of the Gemara in Brachot 31b
“Hanna spoke in her heart” … concerning her heart. She said before him: Master of the world, Of all the things that you have created in a woman, you have created nothing without a purpose- eyes to see, ears to hear, a nose to smell, a mouth to speak , hands to do labor, legs to walk, breasts to nurse - these breasts that you have placed on my heart , are they not for nursing? Give me a son, so that I may nurse him…
Hanna is frustrated because she has the physical ability to nurture but is unable to realize this potential. While a male can impregnate a woman and disappear , the woman carries the baby to term and then offers it nourishment.
Therefore, the question of the nature of women’s role in avodat hashem and Torah study is dependent on whether we are dealing with the experiential or the logical plane.
The motivation to encourage women to study Torah stems from the fact that Talmud Torah is central to our religious life, both as a vehicle for dvekut (Intimacy with God) and for developing a Torah based world view. Beside this intrinsic value, it is important to avoid a situation in which a woman who is well educated in many fields, is limited to a rudimentary understanding of Torah. Everyone familiar with the world of halacha, understands that its study is rooted in a legalistic element that is based on logical deduction and that follows the rules of halachic hermeneutics. In these intellectual endeavors, men and women are similar. On the other hand, areas of religious life where the experiential-existential plane is dominant, like prayer, are different for men and women.
The conclusion from this is twofold: Firstly as long as we are dealing with the use of intellect in Avodat Hashem, I am interested in increasing women’s participation and creating as even a playing field as possible. Secondly, I do not subscribe to the position that holds that women study Torah differently (unless we are speaking of much higher levels of learning, which reach beyond the level of legal understanding. That level is not part of the present public discussion nor of my concern here)
It is important to note that, due to the experiential differences, there may be a difference in the drive and ambition to engage in legalistic-halachic study as an expression ofAvodat HaShem. In my experience teaching in a Jewish High School overseas, there was a group of advanced students who were chosen for intensive limudei kodesh(religious studies) studies. As a school committed to egalitarian education, the administration created an identical track in Gemara for both boys and girls, however it quickly became apparent that many of the girls did not find the learning fulfilling. I suggested that the school offer an alternative advanced track in Tanach for those girls interested, and indeed most of them took advantage of that option. There was a small group who preferred Gemara and they joined my shiur. One of them has continued with intensive Torah study and has reached a high level of achievement within the world of women’s Torah study. I would therefore suggest that we not impose the male model of learning on all women, but we must facilitate and encourage those who are attracted to the yeshiva model of Talmud study.
Despite the common intellectual aspect, we should recognize that there are different expressions of women’s religiosity which manifest the experiential aspect. It is not appropriate for me to instruct women how this should be expressed, as the difference between us lies at precisely this point.
Regarding the general halachic questions of women and mitzvot, we must be aware that the halacha is a system which evolves and develops over a long duration. Halacha is both a living system which is influenced by changing circumstances and a legal system in which precedent, continuity and endurance are meaningful. We live the halacha in the present, not in the past nor in the future. Our life of mitzvoth reflects the human relationship with the Divine and the people Israel with their maker – these relationships are in the here and now. By way of demonstration, even if one knows that some time in the future, as years go by one’s relationship with one’s spouse will undergo changes, that should not determine the nature of the relationship in the present. So too, even if we know that halacha will look very different in 200 years, this should have no bearing on halacha today and our commitment to it. Calls for radical change, based on claims that a certain innovation is the wave of the future and excavations of early sources to rely on positions that have been rejected from the halachic mainstream, are improper. True, it is difficult to distinguish between legitimate evolutionary change and improper radical revision, and one posek’s opinion about what is appropriate may go too far for another, nevertheless, it is an important and meaningful distinction.
Beyond the question of formal halacha, there is the issue of our relationship to the past and to the continuity to previous generations, what we commonly call “tradition”. Even those things that may be justified by pure halachic reasoning can only be legitimized if they keep us on a continuum with previous generations and don’t sever our connection to the past. Gradual changes, whether in halacha proper or in minhag, are more acceptable than dramatic changes which impact on this continuity. I have reservations about certain practices that have spread in our communities and suggested changes, even though they are technically justified by a reading of the sources. Were they the result of incremental change, I would feel more comfortable.
Of course, it should be emphasized, there will always be room to consider circumstances that require exceptions to the rule as is the case in all areas of life. For example, I gave my approval for a woman to don tefilin privately at home when I was convinced of her sincerity and inner need, and was made aware of problems that would ensue if she was prohibited from doing so. However, a prerequisite for these exceptional cases is absolute certainty that the person is motivated by a sincere desire for religious experience and intimacy with God and not extraneous considerations like gender equality. Moreover, it should be emphasized that this is not ideal, and that such situations would better be avoided.. For the time being I think that we should preferably act according to the principles which I suggested above , and avoid such innovations .
I have no principled difficulty with a woman adjudicating halachic questions if she is qualified and if she is called upon because of her scholarship (and not merely because of her chromosomes). At the present time I am not aware of many women who are qualified for this. I want to emphasize that to be qualified for this demands two central conditions:
a familiarity of the world of Torah grounded in the mitzvah of torah study and traditional methodologies of Talmud torah (as opposed to academic approaches) and
comprehensive knowledge of the whole of the Torah.
I yearn from the day when there will be poskot who will be so qualified, but as of now I am not aware of their existence. I acknowledge that there is a certain level of proficiency that has been achieved, and certainly those women who answer halachic questions regarding family purity are doing holy work, but I have yet to find someone at the level necessary to address the difficult questions that require “broad shoulders.”
