Women and Mitzvot

[Rhiamom]

That is the title of the April 29, 2014 Conservative responsum ruling that women are equally bound as men to perform the time-bound mitzvot from which they have been historically exempt. The vote was 15 to 3, so definitely a majority opinion.

I can't be the only person who has trouble with this idea, even though it is a logical extension of the egalitarian policies of Conservative Judaism. I am fine with women voluntarily taking this on; fine even with female rabbis being required to take this on. I am not fine with egalitarianism being defined as identicalism, I guess. I am not fine with being told I need to alter my entire approach to Judaism.

 

[Ingledsva]

Could you tell us what these laws are, and why you don't wish to follow them?

*

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I do not understand why women have not been bound by the Mitzvot.
My questions would be...


As women play a very central part in the Family life and Upbringing of Jewish children, and to do so must clearly understand the the centricity of the Mitzvot to their faith. How can they not be bound by it?

What is it that would differentiate men and women in the sight of God ,that would release them from observing the Mitzvot?
Edit....
I found and read through this document Which is very detailed but still confusing in many concepts.
http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/s...ah/teshuvot/2011-2020/womenandhiyyuvfinal.pdf

 

[Tarheeler]

That is the title of the April 29, 2014 Conservative responsum ruling that women are equally bound as men to perform the time-bound mitzvot from which they have been historically exempt. The vote was 15 to 3, so definitely a majority opinion.

I can't be the only person who has trouble with this idea, even though it is a logical extension of the egalitarian policies of Conservative Judaism. I am fine with women voluntarily taking this on; fine even with female rabbis being required to take this on. I am not fine with egalitarianism being defined as identicalism, I guess. I am not fine with being told I need to alter my entire approach to Judaism.

I agree with you, and this is where I often have issues with Conservative Judaism.
While I have no issue with saying that minhag and the "fences around the fences" are subject to change when society and our understanding render them moot, I believe that halachah is binding and eternal. I fully support women choosing to take up time bound mitzvot when they find meaning and value in them, but I think it wrong to declare them obligated and bound to do so.


As for the other posts, women, as the center of the home and Jewish life, are exempt from the things we must do based on the times of day (such as laying tefillin, wearing tzitzit, and praying at the three appointed times during the day). There are several reasons given for the exemptions, including the idea that women, who are able to create life through birth, are inherently closer to God than men and do not need the structured reminders of time bound mitzvot, and the practical idea that as the center of the family they need flexibility in their day to be able to accomplish all that is needed.

 

[Rhiamom]

It could also be argued that women already pray 3 times a day, preparing (kosher) meals for the family. IIRC the logic for extending the rules covering Temple ritual slaughter and kashering to the home was based on the substitution of the home for the Temple, the table for the altar, the meals eaten there for the Temple sacrifices. It causes me to wonder if the kohanim serving in the Temple prayed three times a day on top of their very busy schedule of sacrifices.

 

[Rhiamom]

Could you tell us what these laws are, and why you don't wish to follow them?

*

Primarily it is the requirement to pray 3 times a day, preferably in a minyan. To lay tefillin and wear tallit and tzitzit.

 

[Rhiamom]

I do not understand why women have not been bound by the Mitzvot.
My questions would be...

As women play a very central part in the Family life and Upbringing of Jewish children, and to do so must clearly understand the the centricity of the Mitzvot to their faith. How can they not be bound by it?

What is it that would differentiate men and women in the sight of God ,that would release them from observing the Mitzvot?
Edit....
I found and read through this document Which is very detailed but still confusing in many concepts.
http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/s...ah/teshuvot/2011-2020/womenandhiyyuvfinal.pdf

I thought I put a link to the right responsa in my original post, but I did not. You were reading the right one, though. The basic reason women have been exempt from some specific mitzvot is that the early Rabbis said and wrote so. Anything else is just trying to justify what the Rabbis said.

The first 30 pages is explaining and then refuting the arguments given over time to justify the exemption of women. If you read it carefully you will discern all the reasons.

It is clearly a decision in line with holding bat mitzvah ceremonies, ordaining female rabbis, having mixed seating, and not having a mechitza. It is clearly a decision in line with Conservative values. But to me it feels like a demotion.

 

[Ingledsva]

Primarily it is the requirement to pray 3 times a day, preferably in a minyan. To lay tefillin and wear tallit and tzitzit.

I can see where minyan, tefillin, and even tzitzit, might be a problem for a woman with children.

But why not the tallit?

I have a friend that says all of Israel was told to do these things, and she wants to wear the tallit, and be able to pray at the wall. She says men's laws do not override God's laws.

For the rest, - a link to WOW info - Women of the Wall.

"In 1997, a new commission was appointed and the Supreme Court helped the legal process move faster. In the Knesset, Shas tried to pass a bill that would change the status of the Kotel from a national site, to an Orthodox synagogue, but the bill did not pass. Later WOW went to court again. On May 22, 2002, the court ruled in WOW's favor, granting women the right to wear prayer shawls at the Kotel, pray aloud and read from a Torah scroll as part of the prayer service. Jewish feminists all over the world rejoiced, but the happiness of WOW was shattered when the state appealed the decision. Four days later, Shas submitted several bills to override the Supreme Court decision, including one that would make communal prayer by women punishable by a fine and seven years in prison."

"In April 2013, the Jerusalem District Court upheld an earlier decision of the magistrate’s court that women who wear prayer shawls at the Western Wall Plaza are not contravening “local custom” or causing a public disturbance and therefore should not be arrested, seemingly overturning the Supreme Court ruling against WOW from 2003."

After which - Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men slashed tires and hurled rocks at buses.

It always amazes me the lengths men will go to in controlling women, and women's religion. Seven years in prison for communal prayer!

As a Jewish woman, what are your thoughts on this, and the connection to your original post? Thanks.

*

 

[Rhiamom]

I can see where minyan, tefillin, and even tzitzit, might be a problem for a woman with children.

But why not the tallit?

I have a friend that says all of Israel was told to do these things, and she wants to wear the tallit, and be able to pray at the wall. She says men's laws do not override God's laws.

For the rest, - a link to WOW info - Women of the Wall.

"In 1997, a new commission was appointed and the Supreme Court helped the legal process move faster. In the Knesset, Shas tried to pass a bill that would change the status of the Kotel from a national site, to an Orthodox synagogue, but the bill did not pass. Later WOW went to court again. On May 22, 2002, the court ruled in WOW's favor, granting women the right to wear prayer shawls at the Kotel, pray aloud and read from a Torah scroll as part of the prayer service. Jewish feminists all over the world rejoiced, but the happiness of WOW was shattered when the state appealed the decision. Four days later, Shas submitted several bills to override the Supreme Court decision, including one that would make communal prayer by women punishable by a fine and seven years in prison."

"In April 2013, the Jerusalem District Court upheld an earlier decision of the magistrate’s court that women who wear prayer shawls at the Western Wall Plaza are not contravening “local custom” or causing a public disturbance and therefore should not be arrested, seemingly overturning the Supreme Court ruling against WOW from 2003."

After which - Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men slashed tires and hurled rocks at buses.

It always amazes me the lengths men will go to in controlling women, and women's religion. Seven years in prison for communal prayer!

As a Jewish woman, what are your thoughts on this, and the connection to your original post? Thanks.

*

I support the Women of the Wall. I think that any woman who chooses to take on the historically male mitzvot should be free to do so. Wear the tallit, lay tefillin, pray mincha every evening at the synagogue.

My sole objection is that this ruling obligates all Conservative Jewish women to these mitzvot, eliminating the historical exemption. What happens when your nursing infant wakes up unexpectedly hungry in the middle of the morning prayers? Doing these things would make me feel resentful of the rabbis in the Rabbinical Assembly who voted for this policy, not closer to HaShem.

 

[rosends]

It could also be argued that women already pray 3 times a day, preparing (kosher) meals for the family. IIRC the logic for extending the rules covering Temple ritual slaughter and kashering to the home was based on the substitution of the home for the Temple, the table for the altar, the meals eaten there for the Temple sacrifices. It causes me to wonder if the kohanim serving in the Temple prayed three times a day on top of their very busy schedule of sacrifices.

First off, while I am not weighing in on the particular halachic validity of the decision to obligate women, I find it amusing (not in a condescending way...just as a piece of irony) that the ruling creates, in the path of equality, additional obligations which are more stringent than orthodoxy.

As to your question about priests and prayer, if one accepts the talmudic opinion that prayer is a replacement for the sacrifices, working backwards, one might conclude that during temple times, there was no liturgy of prayer (other than the levitical song and maybe some psalms) that had to be said at a particular time.

 

[Rhiamom]

First off, while I am not weighing in on the particular halachic validity of the decision to obligate women, I find it amusing (not in a condescending way...just as a piece of irony) that the ruling creates, in the path of equality, additional obligations which are more stringent than orthodoxy.

As to your question about priests and prayer, if one accepts the talmudic opinion that prayer is a replacement for the sacrifices, working backwards, one might conclude that during temple times, there was no liturgy of prayer (other than the levitical song and maybe some psalms) that had to be said at a particular time.

Thank you, Rosends, for not addressing the halachic validity. It is why I posted in the Conservative DIR, and not the Judaism DIR.

In From Politics to Piety by Jacob Neusner, a book about the Pharisees, the author mentions that the Pharisees dictated that food for consumption in the home meet the ritual requirements for Temple sacrifices. This obviously could not have happened without the support of the general populace. I see this way of eating, of observing kashrut, to be a suitable replacement for prayer 3 times a day. If men preparing sacrifices in the Temple was sufficient, then why is not women preparing food to even more stringent standards also sufficient?

 

[rosends]

Thank you, Rosends, for not addressing the halachic validity. It is why I posted in the Conservative DIR, and not the Judaism DIR.

In From Politics to Piety by Jacob Neusner, a book about the Pharisees, the author mentions that the Pharisees dictated that food for consumption in the home meet the ritual requirements for Temple sacrifices. This obviously could not have happened without the support of the general populace. I see this way of eating, of observing kashrut, to be a suitable replacement for prayer 3 times a day. If men preparing sacrifices in the Temple was sufficient, then why is not women preparing food to even more stringent standards also sufficient?

I understand what you are saying but that could be seen as looking at the situation backwards -- the temple sacrifices (according to that one opinion) came first. They were not a replacement for prayer -- prayer replaced them.

I haven't read the Neusner book so I'm not sure what he means -- the sacrificial laws are similar, but the question of ritual purity is different, which is why food sacrificed outside the temple is chulin.

 

[Rhiamom]

I understand what you are saying but that could be seen as looking at the situation backwards -- the temple sacrifices (according to that one opinion) came first. They were not a replacement for prayer -- prayer replaced them.

I haven't read the Neusner book so I'm not sure what he means -- the sacrificial laws are similar, but the question of ritual purity is different, which is why food sacrificed outside the temple is chulin.

I am not making myself clear. What I mean is that just as the prayers replace the Temple sacrifices for men, the food preparation done according to the rules of Temple ritual sacrifices can replace the Temple rituals for women. Even the Temple purity laws for priests have been retained, becoming the ritual handwashing before meals.

 

[rosends]

I am not making myself clear. What I mean is that just as the prayers replace the Temple sacrifices for men, the food preparation done according to the rules of Temple ritual sacrifices can replace the Temple rituals for women. Even the Temple purity laws for priests have been retained, becoming the ritual handwashing before meals.

I understand that point; I was just commenting on your question whether the priests prayed along with performing the sacrificial service.

 

[Tarheeler]

Guys, this is the Conservative Judaism DIR. If you don't identify as a Conservative Jew, then you need restrict yourselves to respectful questions.
CMike started a sister thread in the main DIR.

 

[Ingledsva]

Because women are not allowed to dress as men, and men aren't allowed to dress as women.

Which has what to do with this?

According to the lady I was speaking with - these commands were given to all of Israel, not just the men. Tradition is being used against them, - not YHVH's word.

*

 

[Rhiamom]

I understand that point; I was just commenting on your question whether the priests prayed along with performing the sacrificial service.

I can't imagine there were not specific prayers or bracha the priests recited associated with the sacrifices, but we cannot really know.

 

[rosends]

I can't imagine there were not specific prayers or bracha the priests recited associated with the sacrifices, but we cannot really know.

We know, for example, that on Yom Kippur, the high priest did say some things as a confession, and that when others heard him say God's name they said a verse. We know of the priestly blessing. We also know that the Levites sang a daily song. Here is a discussion which references a small set of prayers that were said. What is interesting is that it references the "shmoneh esrei" which indicates that the specific content of the prayer was known. I wonder if this is a linguistic convenience. I will have to look that up.

I forgot the link...sorry

The Jewish Press » » Count Your Blessings

YUTorah Online - Shemini - Aharon's Prayers (Rabbi Solomon Drillman)#

I did a quick check in Brachos 11b -- it says that the kohen gadol would tell the kohanim in the morning to say a single blessing, recite the 10 commandments, the 3 paragraphs of the shma, then emet vyatziv, retzei and the priestly blessing. An extra blessing was added on Shabbat. But the text does not say that they said the shmoneh esrei. That wording is from the article.

 

[Rhiamom]

We know, for example, that on Yom Kippur, the high priest did say some things as a confession, and that when others heard him say God's name they said a verse. We know of the priestly blessing. We also know that the Levites sang a daily song. Here is a discussion which references a small set of prayers that were said. What is interesting is that it references the "shmoneh esrei" which indicates that the specific content of the prayer was known. I wonder if this is a linguistic convenience. I will have to look that up.

I forgot the link...sorry

The Jewish Press » » Count Your Blessings

YUTorah Online - Shemini - Aharon's Prayers (Rabbi Solomon Drillman)#

I did a quick check in Brachos 11b -- it says that the kohen gadol would tell the kohanim in the morning to say a single blessing, recite the 10 commandments, the 3 paragraphs of the shma, then emet vyatziv, retzei and the priestly blessing. An extra blessing was added on Shabbat. But the text does not say that they said the shmoneh esrei. That wording is from the article.

Ah, thank you, rosends. I am surprised that we know (or have deduced) the prayers of the kohanim. Very interesting! (The non-Orthodox mind does wonder how Rashi was able to determine what prayers were recited 1000 years after the fact.) I do not hold the Talmud in quite the same regard as the Orthodox, but I do see the necessity of it existing and providing guidance.

So, instead of priests reciting prayers and making sacrifices we have men reciting prayers. Don't you see any symbolic significance in the use of the rules for Temple Ritual sacrifice in the home, as I do? If it carries no symbolic significance then why bother with following those Temple rules in the home? Yes, it was a Pharisaic/Rabbinic teaching, that these rules were to be followed in the home, but it is not in the Torah for application in the home. (Unlike the meat and milk exhortations, which clearly apply all the time and are not just given to the priests.)

 

[Rhiamom]

Which has what to do with this?

According to the lady I was speaking with - these commands were given to all of Israel, not just the men. Tradition is being used against them, - not YHVH's word.

*

Sorry, Ingledsva, I hope you did not mistake what I said to mean you were the troll. You definitely are not.

You have a good point. In fact, the simple fact that women are said to be "exempt" suggests that the plain meaning of the command includes women. If it only applies to the men in the first place, the women would not be "exempt."

However, "exempt" has somehow come to mean "prohibited" in Ultra-orthodox and most Orthodox circles. A stringency becomes law if a community accepts it long enough. Like not eating kitniyos is really only a custom.