Today we encounter one of the more divisive rulings in the Halakha. The mishna begins:
Women, slaves and minors are exempt from reciting the Shema and from putting on Tefillin. But they are subject to the obligations of Tefillah and Mezuzah and Grace after meals.
The Gemara responds quickly:
It is obvious that they are exempt from the Shema – that is a positive commandment which is time-bound, and women are exempt from all positive time-bound commandments!
Really? Was it that obvious?
If this is such a well known principle, we would be within our rights to expect the Talmud to give us its source or background. We saw yesterday that it spent nearly a whole daf trying to find the source for Human Dignity and its power to defer prohibitions. And yet, today, nothing.
I’m highlighting this as a strange absence in the text. And before highlighting some other strange absences, I’d like to propose one understanding of them:
The Talmud is not shy about discussing anything and everything, pretty much whatever someone might say can lead to a discussion of one or other related topics. Discussion is basically its raison d’etre, its lifeblood. So if the Talmud doesn’t discuss something, it suggests that the matter was so uncontroversial, so widely assumed, so unconsciously accepted in Talmudic culture that no one thought to question it.
To my mind, this suggests that if something did become controversial in later generations, as society and people changed, then the discussion ought to be re-opened, that this would be the only authentically Talmudic response. Judaism is always about trying to improve the world, to improve the moral and spiritual quality of the lives we lead. In order to do this it must always start from our mode of living in the world, from the raw actuality of that.
Put differently, there is perhaps nothing fundamentally Jewish about this strict division of male and female roles. It may have been codified in Jewish Law, but that doesn’t necessarily make it any sort of Jewish Ideal. It simply means that it was an aspect of people’s lives and so some kind of habit and rule was required in response to it.
For example, we see later today – 21b – that a man may wed a woman who was raped by either his father or his son. Would we say that there is any kind of ideal involved in one’s relatives being rapists? I think it’s clear that the answer is no. On the other hand, such a circumstance may arise, and in a society where a raped woman would find it hard to get married, it may seem reasonable to allow such a marriage to proceed, with the women’s consent.
This is an extreme example, but it shows the extent to which we need to be careful about moving too readily from Jewish Law to Jewish Ideals.
Maybe we should step back a moment, perhaps I’m rushing into assuming that this issue of women’s exemption is objectionable, something that needs defending and repackaging in a radical way.
Perhaps it isn’t, I did a survey of a few women today and the exemption itself didn’t seem to be so problematic. Where it may sometimes leads to seems to be the problem, but we’ll get there.
That said, I do still think it’s worth noting these strange absences.
So the first is the lack of a source for the principle of exemption. We may happen to know that it is also mentioned in a Mishna in Kiddushin (29a) but there is no biblical source given.
The second is the lack of any explanation at all. We must assume that the rationale is something to do with a woman’s role in the home, which keeps her too busy and does not allow her to break for the Shema or to put Tefillin on. Yet this is quite strange – are men never busy, does their contribution to the maintenance of the household never merit an exemption?
This brings us to the third absence, the lack of exceptions. What about a widow who has lost his wife and is forced to raise his children on his own? What about a woman aged 23 who is not yet married and has a very comfortable and relaxed life? Or a woman of 63 in a similar position?
By neither considering nor exploring these realities, the text begins to suggest that there is something more fundamental in play, some less practical reason why a woman is exempt.
And at this point it can go either way.
One can say that women are superior, that they are intrinsically more spiritual, more attuned to the love and compassion which the mitzvot are trying to teach us.
One could say that the work they are involved in is fundamentally more holy, more Divine, and that there is less need to take them away from it to remind them of their genuine purpose in life. As we discussed with relation to breastfeeding (pages 3 and 10), we hold the maternal as the highest model of being, and we learn from it how to conduct ourselves.
Further, one may say that men are prone to forget their origins and roots in the family, and to stray towards alien Gods. For this reason they must have a framework and routine which brings them back to it.
And this is all very nice.
But, realistically, this massive generalisation, this universal assumption about what men and women do, carries a huge risk of essentialising and reifying gender.
It leads us to generate a blessing wherein man thank God for not making them a woman.
It leads us to rebuking women who wish to wear tefilin, as Rambam seems to do (Tefilin 4:13) and as codified in the Shulkhan Arukh (OH 38:3). This rebuke becomes demonisation in contemporary life.
It leads us to banishing women from any role in synagogue life, relegating them to a non- participatory spectators’ gallery, far away from the action.
There is a line of thinking which says that men will look to subdue women wherever and however they can. They are threatened by them, sometimes by their goodness and tenderness, other times by what their sensual sexuality evokes in the male. And sometimes it’s simply by their symbolising the dependency of the maternal.
So let us assume that from time to time over the last two thousand years this misogynistic spirit has flared up within Jewish culture. In such circumstances, it seems inevitable that people will have looked to Jewish texts and law and abused them in order to legitimise their diminution of women.
And, let us be honest, the text of the Mishna opens itself to this. Women are treated in the same breath as slaves and children; the idea that we are talking about higher spiritual beings doesn’t quite ring true here. If we started with ‘women, angels and saints are exempt…’ then we might have a case on our hands. It may be unfortunate, but juxtaposing women with slaves makes a certain sort of conclusion tragically inevitable.
This leads us to the fourth and final absence: the voice of the women. This is a discussion of men about women, and at no point is any woman consulted or quoted in order to hear her thoughts. We don’t talk about whether Devorah said Shema before battle, nor do we consult the habits of Beruria to see how she felt about the dimension of time. Women are absent from the study hall here, whether through exemption or exclusion, and we are asked to trust that the men of 1800 plus years ago knew their needs and natures best. To the modern eye, this ‘legislation by the other’ robs women of all their dignity.
It doesn’t look great.
This is a huge topic, and I’ve no doubt we will be returning to it. In summary, I read the text here as exhibiting several glaring absences, and these leave it sorely exposed to an abusive appropriation for unholy ends. However, I do not believe that Judaism is in essence a rigidly gendered or misogynistic culture, and as the realities of the world change, new discussions must take place to ensure that its ultimate aims can be furthered.
Let us end by noting something wonderful on daf 21a. Rav Yehuda proposes that the prayer we say after the Shema is actually a more binding obligation, a Torah obligation, than the Shema itself. Let us remember the beginning of that prayer:
True and firm, established and enduring, right, faithful, beloved, cherished, delightful, pleasant, awesome, mighty, perfect, accepted, good and beautiful is this faith for us for ever and ever.
Quite. When the ideals we lay claim to in Judaism match up to these standards then we know we are on solid ground. When we know or suspect that they do not, then it is time for some serious soul searching, it is the time to root out whatever toxic may have entered our spirit and to expunge it.
p.s. I dedicate this blog to my wife, who has in every positive way earned her exemption from the bindings of time. With the little time she has, she fights to ensure women are fairly treated in Judaism, and I stand proudly behind her on this quest.