Friday, April 18, 2025

Rav Hirsch

You may ask wasn’t Rav Hirsch indicating something positive about the woman in saying that the Torah didn’t need to obligate her in positive time bound commandments? On the flip side, does the exemption say anything negative about her? I answer that it would seem that R. Hirsch was saying something positive, just as the Midrash was in saying women are “zrizus b’mitzvos”, the statement upon which R’ Hirsch based his words.

The question is was R’ Hirsch saying that women are more spiritual, better in touch with the divine, or on a higher plane than men as many English books have said in his name? Well, R’ Hirsch himself affirms in many places the equality of the male and the female.


In the word איש and אשה lay the guarantee for the equality in rank and mutually complementing calling of Man and Woman. As long as man and woman were איש and אשה. there was no need for man to be emancipated from woman nor woman from man, neither could make the other into a slave nor yet into a god or goddess. The first who altered this designation - as indeed our sages remark, in no other language are man and woman designated by words coming from the same root and so regarded from the same trend of thought - brought it about that one man would yoke his woman to the plough while the other would throw himself at her feet.

And

While fully appreciating the special and deeply implanted characteristics of the female sex, the Sages also attribute to it complete spiritual and intellectual equality with the male. In the very words with which the formation of man by the hands of God is proclaimed וייצר ה' אלקים את האדם, they find an indication that the formation of both male and female is on the same footing.  יצירה לאדם יצירה לחוה (Genesis R. 14).


To insinuate that a woman could simultaneously have a greater yetzer tov and a smaller yetzer hara, as many English kiruv books do, is to make a goddess of her. R’ Hirsch refutes this. He says quite clearly that men and women are equal.

So how can it be that men and women are equal but women don’t “need” those mitzvos? The answer I believe is that mitzvos have many aspects as do neshamos. Take for example, two pieces from the Maharal. In Deroshos Al HaTorah 27, he says women don’t need limud Torah as limud Torah works to tame aggressiveness and women are by nature tranquil. Does this mean that women are superior? In Tiferes Israel 4, he says men are obligated in positive time bound commandments because the male is the tzurah and the positive commandments are tzurah. The female is chomer. In other words, the male is more spiritual. In Chidushei Makkos 23b he phrases this in even stronger terms. We know from many places in the Maharal that he viewed men as being more spiritual (Tiferes Israel 28) and on a higher plane (Derech Chaim 2:9 - marbe nashim marbe kishofim). Yet women don’t need limud Torah. I think it’s fair to say that the Maharal was talking about one aspect of limud Torah, just as R’ Hirsch was doing with positive time bound commandments. Mitzvos have many aspects. Mitzvos correct our flaws but also engage our strengths.

God is one and all facets of the creation have a positive purpose. When the Maharal says that men are aggressive is that aggressiveness all bad? With intensity we can transform ourselves and push for truth. Rather, the aggressiveness is a part of the neshama that needs to be channeled. But it isn’t bad. The Maharal says men have more cochos hanefesh and more parts of the soul that lean towards the spiritual. Perhaps, the aggressiveness comes from that.

So how are men and women equal? We are equal overall over the balance of our differences and the strengths and weaknesses that constitute them. The man may get into trouble without the positive commandments but those commandments also serve to channel his powers of the soul, which inherently are positive. So is it a compliment that women are exempt? Yes. Is it a compliment that men are obligated? Yes.

The Magen Avraham says that women are exempt from positive time bound commandments because their yetzer tov is smaller than that of men. (Zies Ra’anan on Yalkut Shimoni, Shmuel 1:1). Is that a complement to the man? It would seem so. But I imagine there’s a flipside to this. R’ Hirsch points out the flip side. Is this saying something negative about the woman? I suppose in a way if one insists but no more negative than in saying the man needs the mitzvos. Both are complements and both indications of limitations. When the Maharal says that women’s exemption is because they are less b’tzelem elokim (Chidushei Agados Makkos 23b), is that saying something negative? Perhaps it is; although it seems to me to call it that is to criticize the creator. How is it negative if the Creator made it so? You know what I mean.

R’ Moshe Feinstein offered a more direct approach. He said that obligation in commandments comes from holiness. Men and women are equal in holiness. Women have a connection to the commandments but are exempt due to household duties. (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, IV, 49). This is the approach that I would suggest in teaching to the young people of today.

No comments:

Post a Comment