Whence lady rabbis?

Whence lady rabbis?

Orthodox rabbis everywhere are condemning Open Orthodoxy and its call for lady rabbis and other engagement by females in halachically prescribed and traditional male activity like reading from the Torah and the wearing of tzitzis and tefillin. However, many of these very same rabbis bear responsibility for encouraging this new trend by teaching that women are more spiritual than men.

The teaching that women are more spiritual than men implies that a man's role is more spiritual than a woman's. How so? One can reasonably ask, if women are more spiritual, shouldn't they be the rabbis and spiritual leaders of the home? So apologists like to say, the men "catch up" via Torah study, tefillin, and other positive time-bound commandments to which women are exempt. However, in order to catch up the man's day must be more spiritual than the woman's or he'd never catch up. Thus, according to that logic, taking care of the home and the children really is a less spiritual path.

But isn't this precisely what we didn't want the women to conclude? See where dishonesty gets you? No wonder we have women today that want to be rabbis and wear tefillin. Rabbis condemn them, but these women are in many respects products of what they have been taught by some of those very same rabbis. These women want to be spiritual. And they have been taught that the man's role is more spiritual.

Why do I call the apologetics dishonesty? Because there are no Torah sources that teach them. R' Samson R. Hirsch is most commonly cited. But one has to read his words carefully. He says only that the Torah “did not consider them necessary to be demanded from women” in part because they have “more faithful enthusiasm for their God-serving calling.” (Vayikra 23, Levy trans.) People get lost on his use of the word "necessary." A Levi doesn't need to do Birchos Cohanim. Only the Kohen, who has more holiness, has that “need.” The woman doesn't “need” those mitzvos for her role. But she doesn't have the man's role. You can't mix and match.

R' Hirsch also says that "The male sex is zachar, it is the depository of the Divine revelations and the spiritual attainments of the human race. To it has been entrusted the zicharon, the tradition of the human race as it has developed, in him is formed the spiritual chain which links together the beginning and the end of the human race. (JE, Vol. 2; CW, Vol. VIII, "The Jewish Woman") This is not something you'd want to assign to the less spiritual person. Rav Hirsch also says in many places that men and women are equal in their spiritual levels even as their roles are different. Examples:

"In the word איש and אשה. (man and a female man I.L.) 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." (R' Samson Raphael Hirsch, Genesis 11 :58)
“God has divided the sexes, giving each specific tasks in the fulfillment of life. Both tasks, if fulfilled in purity are equally sublime, equally holy.” R' Samson Raphael Hirsch: Horeb 433
"The change from singular to plural, which we have tried to reproduce in our translation of this first mention of man and woman in the story of the creation, already indicates the full equality of status, nay, the inner unity between man and woman in the conception and the destiny of "man formed in the image of God." This term embraces both sexes. Only man and woman together make up the idea of "man", and God created both of them alike without intermediary, and with the same conscious effort of will power."  R' Samson Raphael Hirsch, Judaism Eternal, vol. II, p 51.

That women have more enthusiasm for their calling doesn’t mean they have more enthusiasm than men and doesn’t mean they would have the same enthusiasm for the man’s calling. The Baal Magen Avraham on Yalkut Shemoni, Shmuel 1:1 says that women are exempt from the positive time-bound commandments because their yetzer tov is smaller than the man's and if commanded they liked wouldn’t fulfill those commandments.

As for other commentators, the Maharal says in many places that men are more spiritual than women (Tiferes Yisroel 4 and 28, Derech Chaim 1:5, Chidushei Agados Makkos 23b, Gur Aryeh, Vayikra 12:2 ) and says that women are exempt from positive time-bound commandments for this reason (Chidushei Agados Makkos 23b, Tiferes Yisroel 4). The Akeidas Yitzchok says women are exempt from these commandments because they are weaker. (Akeidas Yitzchak, Bereishis 6)

But not all that is suitable for the general public. May we suggest that going forward we teach simply that men and women are equal in spiritual levels but different in roles? So taught the great leaders of our era Rav Moshe Feinstein, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R' Joseph Soloveitchik, and R' Avigdor Miller.

R' Feinstein said that every mention of holiness in the Chumash refers to both men and women, telling us that the two genders are equal in holiness. The exemption of women from positive time-bound commandments is as the word says an exemption so that she can engage in child rearing and chesed. (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim IV #49)

R' Feinstein writes elsewhere:

"...every Jew should realize that he is sanctified with the holiness of the Jew, and it is only because of that holiness that we were given the Torah and obligated to do the mitzvos. As I have often written, mitzvos cannot be fulfilled properly unless the doer has the holiness of the Jew. The Kohanim, who have additional mitzvos, must have the particular holiness of Kohanim....The expression "Who has sanctified us with His mitzvos" should not be misunderstood as meaning that mitzvos are the source of the sanctity. It is self-understood that the sanctity the blessing refers to is the underlying sanctity of every Jew -- that which enables us to fulfill the mitzvos." (Darash Moshe, Volume II, p. 154, Vayikra, Kedoshim)

Thus, we should not say that men are not unholy until they do the mitzvos because their holiness is what obligates them in those mitzvos. Women also are holy, only they are exempt from certain mitzvos so that they can do other mitzvos. It's not that the women are less holy and not that they are more holy.

R' Soloveitchik said:

"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).

The Lubavitcher Rebbe said that when a husband (or future husband) does those mitzvos, he does them on behalf of his wife. She is affected by his actions. (Sichos in English, Iyar-Tammuz 5744, Vol. 21, pp. 69-72) He said also the exemption is not because women are inferior (but he does NOT say it is because they are superior).

R' Miller also says that the father performs those special mitzvos on behalf of the whole family (Q&A: Thursday Nights with Rabbi Miller, pp. 189-190) and that

"As we know, men are commanded to perform mitzvos asei she'haz'man grama, time-bound mitzvos. Women, on the other hand, are not required to perform these mitzvos. What is the reason for this difference? The answer is that women have other important obligations to tend to, which exempt her from these commandments. A woman must know that she is a briah shel chessed, she has been created for the purpose of performing chessed. Being a wife and mother is a very significant role, and it requires her to be selfless and totally dedicated to performing chessed! It takes a woman's entire effort to succeed in being an efficient mother and wife. Investing her abilities in raising children is very time consuming but is a tremendous zechus for her!" (Rabbi Avigdor Miller Speaks, p. 272)

Nobody is spiritually superior. That's the way for this generation to think of it. Let us note how the sages of our generation handle it and follow their lead. Otherwise, to quote a gentile writer "O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!" (Walter Scott)

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.

Abarbanel (Bereishis 1:27) and Netziv Beresishis 1:26

Abarbanel (Bereishis 1:27): Even though Man was created as male and female, they were not both equally perfected. And even though they were the same species they were not equally in the image of G-d. That is why the verse states, “In the image of G-d He created him (singular), male and female He created them.” In other words only Adam was created in the image of G-d because he was the reason and purpose for Creation. It was only for the necessity of procreation that Man was created as male and female. In fact there is no mention of male and female being created in the image of G-d but only for procreation. Gender is found in all animals and it has nothing to do with the image of G-d. From this we can understand why the Torah doesn't say “man according to his species” but it does say that man was created male and female were created by G-d. That is because man is different than other animals in which the female is on the same level as the male and is fully equal to him in nature and that is why it says about them “according to his species” without giving the male any superiority to the female.  However it is different concerning man because the male is the reason for creation of humans and he alone was created in the image of G-d. Thus the Torah states in the singular grammatical form, In the image of G-d He created him. That is because the male is the one who comprehends mysteries of wisdom and not the female about whom our Sages (Yoma 66b) said, “There is no wisdom in a woman except for the spindle” That is because the creation of the female was only an afterthought to provide the man with a helper and for the purpose of procreation as the Torah states later. So in summary we see that man was originally created alone in perfection while she was made afterwards in order to serve him. So here it just states the fact that she was created but it is only later (Bereishis 2:18-24) that the details of her creation are given. However that understanding seems to be inconsistent with the view (Eiruvin 17a) that male and female were in fact created at the same time as two entities joined together back to back. However in fact our assertion that woman lacks the image of G-d and is inferior to the male is also consistent with the view that Man was created as a hermaphrodite.  In other words man was created with an additional form from which woman was made. Thus it was like man had two aspects (pirtzuf) of male and female as an androgynous being (a Greek word describing a person who has both male and female sexual organs). However the Man was in fact a male in reality while the female aspect was only subordinate and an appendage to the male entity – in order to make a woman from it later. Thus we can explain that when it says Man was created male and female, it means that since the dominate concern was to create an intelligent being whose purpose was intellectual – for that purpose there was no need for the female and thus it was not proper to create with him the female. However this verse of “male and female He created them” teaches that in fact it was not so but rather G-d wanted that man would be created not only with the intellect but also with a non intellectual material aspect...  So even though according to this second view that Man was created with both male and female aspects but the two aspects were not equal in perfection but rather it was the male aspect – the primary one – which was created with the image of G-d.  Man was created as male and intellectual and only secondarily as female to enable the making of a second subordinate entity to serve the male

Netziv(Bereishis 1:26): Let us make man – G-d did not say, “let us make a being like an animal in our likeness” and afterwards call him ‘man’ as is actually written later in Bereishis (5:2). But the phrase, “let us make man” means that there is no need to give man this name – rather his character shows that he is man. But if so it is difficult. Why is it written afterwards that G-d called their name man – which implies that there was a need to give a name...? But rather the matter is like this – that man is different from all the species since all the species were created in such a way that the species was unitary in its purpose and character; which is not the case for man who rose in G-d’s thought to be of two types of character. The one would be cleaving to his G-d, ready and serving in the world like an angel does in the Heavens. And the second is such that he would be political and take care of his own needs; even though he would nonetheless do the will of G-d, it would not be on the level of the first. And behold, according to the first characteristic he is automatically man (adam) based on the phrase ‘I will be similar to the most High – meaning that within him are included all the powers of creation and he rules over everything. And behold he is like the firstborn son of a king who rules like the king. And because of this, everyone understands that he is the son of the king in that they see him ruling over every detail. Which is not the case with the son of the king who is not the firstborn and the king merely makes him rule over some detail and his fellow over another detail and so too with all those that govern the kingdom. It comes out that all of them together are similar to the king; but each one by himself is only similar to the king when he is given the name of ruler over that detail that he governs. And thus is man – the individual of spiritual stature is different then the simple individual. And in Shabbos (112b), they hinted to these two types of men. And it is stated in the first version of a particular thatement “this is not a man” and in a second version “this is an example of a man” –the bexplanationof this being a man of spiritual stature. But the general human species is called man by the nature of the matter in that they as a group rule over the entire creation. And this is according to G-d’s plan. (And so too with the name Israel which indicates being higher than the nature of creation and the running of the world. It will be explained later in Vayishlach that the whole nation is called Israel, but concerning individuals some are called by the name Israel and some have not reached this.) And if so in the statement “let us make man” its explanation is [that it refers to] the general species of man and it is certainly called man even without being given the name since in this general species is the creation dependent and in this detail they are similar to the Creator. And Adam specifically before he sinned was worthy of being called man without being given the name; but after he sinned he was given the name of man and it will be explained further.“According to our likeness” – the image is according to our likenss and automaticallly man – who is clothed in it – is in the likeness of G-d and in this is the power of man.

Netziv (Bereishis 1:27) In the image of G-d  - all of nature was included in him. And from the time that it arose in the though and word of G-d that there should be nature, then G-d was called with the name Elokim. And since all of nature is included in man – behold – he is in the image of G-d. But this is not the case except in the man of stature as Adam was before the sin. Afterwards...."Male and female He created them." The verse does not come to explain that this species, more so than all the other creatures, has a male and a female. Rather, [it comes] to teach you that they are two beings, as will be explained below. This is because the male of this species is not at all similar in his character to the female of the same species. As Kohelet says: "One man among a thousand I have found; but a woman among all those I have not found" (Kohelet 7:28). That is, that a man of virtue resembling his Creator in the image of God is found one in a thousand; Which is not the case regarding women – who only fits the second description of man – who is only described as being man