R’ Soloveitchik on Chukim, Women's mitzvos, and equality

In a conversation with students on parshas Chukas, R’ Soloveitchik cited the Rambam in warning against mockery of the chukim even as a person inquires legitimately into Torah laws. The Rambam said that such mockery of chukim is worse than misappropriation of sanctified objects as the latter were originally secular objects such as wood that were set aside for holy purposes but the former are holy from the outset as established by the Almighty. R’ Soloveitchik points out that the Rambam's intent was not to promote observance of the laws as people in his day were observant, but rather to warn against projection of secular ideas onto them. This constituted mockery of the chukim:

What is the Rambam interested in? In our psychological, axiological approach towards chukim. Against ascribing lesser significance to chukim, or secularizing them. In other words, one must not interpret chukim in practical terms, and inject contemporary meaning in them.

You'll ask me, what is the practical interpretation of chukim? If a rabbi tries to interpret ma'achalos assuros [forbidden food] in terms of hygiene and sanitation. Or taharas ha'mishpacha in terms of sexual psychology, as I once heard a rabbi say, that taharas ha'mishpacha contributes to family bliss, and actually taharas ha'mishpacha accomplishes the miracle that the whole married life is one long honeymoon. This is exactly what the Rambam meant should not be done. You don't accomplish anything by it. You don't achieve anything by it. Educated people, intelligent people, scientific minds, they cannot be so easily fooled. (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 155-6)

So while we may inquire as to reasons for chukim, we must proceed carefully and not fabricate reasons that actually lead to ridicule of them either by their very logic or by how far we push that logic.

R' Soloveitchik explained elsewhere that the halakha is driven by technical constructs something like that of sophisticated scientific thought. In a conversation with students on parshas Korach, he noted that Aristotle's simplistic approach to science was built strictly on observation. In Aristotle's view, gravitational pull was the result of the weight of objects as that is what appears to the eye. Modern science, starting with Galileo and continuing through Newton and unto today, concludes the opposite, that weight is the result of gravitational pull. The former view is empirical and commonsense, the latter conceptual. Says R' Soloveitchik, “Newton discarded commonsense and approached the matter from the viewpoint of the esoteric, abstract, creative, conceptualizing logos.” He continues:

This method of quantification was part of the greatest discovery in the annals of mankind. Of course, if we had been satisfied - not we, the seventeenth century - with Aristotlean physics, we couldn't climb now to the moon. Don't you think that halachah is also entitled to such a theoretical basis? We have, as I stated above, our unique logical and epidemiological approach to halachah. Torah sheh b' al peh is not just a compilation of laws. It's more than that. Mathematics is more than just a corpus of equations. Ask any mathematician who is intelligent, what is math? He wouldn't tell you a corpus of equations. No physicist who understands physics will tell you that physics is a collection of natural laws or equations. Basically, science is a method. Mathematics is a method. It's a method of thinking, a unique logos. So is the Torah sheh-b' al peh. The laws and statutes are of utmost significance. However, if you discard the view that Torah sheh-b' al peh is a system of thought structures and unique logical categories which are accessible to the human mind only if the latter is willing to subject itself to a rigid and tough training, then you open up the floodgates and any ignoramus may claim authority the way Korach did. (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 140-2)

According to R' Soloveitchik, this understanding of the Talmudic method helps us to understand the reason that women are disqualified from serving as witnesses. The disqualification is not a matter of lack of qualification in the axiological sense, ie. it says nothing about the value of women. It is the result of technical constructs. A melech or Jewish king is also disqualified from giving testimony. Says R' Soloveitchik:

If the melech ha'Moshiach were present at the wedding I also wouldn't invite him, because he is also disqualified to bear witness. Would we say all Jews are superior the the melech ha'Moshiach? A king is disqualified to bear witnesses mi'd'oraisa, like an isha. The king Messiah, or King David, or King Solomon, or Moshe Rabbeinu himself are disqualified to bear witness. And a wood-chopper, an ignorant person, a bor mi'd'oraisa is kashur l'eidus. (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, p. 141)

R' Soloveitchik asked if anyone would conclude that the Messiah is inferior by virtue of his disqualification. He said, “If you operate with commonsense categories - yes. Korach operated with commonsense categories, and he was right with his conclusion that if the whole robe is made of purple material it certainly should be exempt from tzitzis. But from the viewpoint of the exact, precise, unique halachic categories psul l'eidus is not indicative at all of the station of the woman in society, in the halachic community.” In other words, just as Aristotle was incorrect to use plain thinking to evaluate gravity, we would be incorrect to use such thinking to evaluate the disqualification of kings and women from giving testimony. It is not what it seems.

So what is the station of the woman? Like R’ Feinstein and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R’ Soloveitchik stressed the differences in the roles for men and women and the general equality in their spiritual worthiness. Basing his comments on the creation of the first man and woman in God’s image, he says:

The foremost distinguishing characteristic bestowed upon man is his Divine image, his tzelem Elohim, which denotes particular qualitative endowments, such as a moral sense, free will, and intellect. Man partakes of these attributes within human limitations, while God's representation of these qualities is absolute. Maimonides embodied man's likeness to God primarily in terms of his intellect (Guide 1: 1). This Divine gift was given to both men and women. "And God created man with His image. In the image of God, He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27). In their spiritual natures, they were equally worthy. (Man of Faith in the Modern World, p. 84).

He said in his discussion of women and testimony, “The Chumash in Bereishis says that when God created man בצלם אלקים ברא אתם . Man and woman were created in the Image of God. Equality was taken for granted. If two personae were created in the image of God, you cannot say one is superior to the other.” (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 142-3)

R’ Soloveitchik finds equality as well in the potential for either sex to achieve prophecy.

The mere fact that among our prophets we find women to whom God has addressed Himself is clear proof that we never differentiated between the sexes axiologically. (Family Redeemed, p. 72; Axiology = Philosophical theory of value)

Equality is the key word. I'll repeat his words, “you cannot say one is superior to the other.” This means that men are not better than women but it also means that women are not better than men. This is a direct contradiction of what many of his students teach. To use the exemption as an indication that women are superior is to make a mockery of it. It's just too simplistic and doesn't explain why the Kohen Gadol has the most mitzvos. Plus it makes mitzvos look one-dimensional, like steps in a program for alcoholics. I know one person who often gives the Gemara of bina yesayra as proof of the thesis that women are superior – an open Gemara he says. We will presume that the Rav also knew that Gemara, yet argues that men and women are equal. He argues from an open posuk. Perhaps equality is less exciting and crowd pleasing but it seems to me it will lead to much healthier relationship between husbands and wives. Women don't want to be superior anyway. They just want respect. Men have the desire to conquer and be superior. Telling women they are superior actually makes them uncomfortable. It's what men think women want to hear. It actually unnerves them because then who can they rely on?