(no subject)
Aug. 22nd, 2012 02:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
seekingferretYesterday's daf discusses the laws about whether a woman is obligated to say Shema, as part of a broader section on situations in which various people are not supposed to say Shema. This naturally leads to discussing other things which women are or aren't obligated to do, because if I were licensed to diagnose millenia-old legal textbooks with 21st century neurology conditions, I would say that the Talmud is the most ADD book ever written.
One of the things discussed is something that actually comes up fairly frequently in real life, so it's more interesting than a lot of other things in the Talmud: Can a woman lead Grace After Meals and be chiyyuv for a man? The fascinating answer is: Sometimes.
To review in case there are actually any goyim trying to follow along... Often rather than everyone saying a prayer, one person says the prayer and everyone else answers 'Amen'. The general rule is that a person answering Amen counts as if they'd said the prayer themself, especially if the person who said the prayer had intent to be 'chiyuv', to satisfy the obligation of the other people. There are a few reasons why this is practical and significant in Jewish practice, with the biggest being that books were once rare and a group of Jews might only have a single copy of the prayer, which might be difficult to share if everyone needed to say the prayer individually. And in some cases, where the prayer needed to be said simultaneously by a group, like the Shemoneh Esrei, reciting the prayer individually one at a time as the book is passed around might be impossible. Even today, where in most situations everyone can afford to have a copy of the prayers, there are a number of cases where by tradition we have one person recite and everyone say Amen, and Grace After Meals is one of them.
However, there is a principle that if you are not obligated to do a law, you cannot satisfy someone else's obligation. Women are exempted from a number of obligations on the basis that they are time-bound, positive commandments, which means that if there is a specific time of day where a commandment must be performed, and it is a positive requirement to do something rather than a prohibition, women don't have to do it. The reason for this is fairly sexist- the Talmud prioritizes the performance of their womanly household tasks over the performance of positive time-bound mitzvot. There is a debate between two Rabbis over whether the Grace After Meals is time-bound. Some say that since there are defined times for eating breakfast, lunch and dinner, it is a time-bound commandment. Others say that since we eat whenever we're hungry, it is not time-bound. In order to resolve this dispute, the Mishna rules that women have to say Grace After Meals, but according to one side, this is a Torah obligation and according to the other side this is only a Rabbinical obligation added as a 'fence' just in case the other side is right, since in any case, women are always allowed to perform the mitzvot that they are not obligated to perform.
Thus, since there is uncertainty about whether a woman is obligated to say Grace After Meals by the Torah, there is uncertainty about whether she can satisfy the obligation of a man to say Grace. According to the opinion of one side, since a woman is obligated to say Grace by the Torah, she can fulfill the obligation for a man. According to the other side, though, since the obligation is only Rabbinical, she cannot fulfill the obligation for a man with a Torah obligation.
But wait, there's more! The Gemara brings an ruling that stated that wives can say Grace for their husbands. So does that mean the opinion that women are obligated by the Torah is right? Not necessarily. According to the opinion that women are obligated by the Torah, we're okay. But according to the other opinion that it's Rabbinical, women can say Grace for their husbands only when the husband's obligation to say Grace is Rabbinical! When is this? The Talmud derives that there is a minimum amount of food that obligates you to say Grace, because the commandment to say Grace is 'v'achalta v'savata uverachta' : You will eat and you will be satisfied, and you will bless the Lord. Thus, if you eat but not enough to be satisfied, you do not need to bless, according to the Torah. But the Rabbis added a blessing you say when you haven't eaten enough to say the full Grace, so this only a Rabbinical obligation to say Grace. Thus a woman's Rabbinical obligation to say Grace because eating might not be considered time bound and a man's Rabbinical obligation to say Grace even when he hasn't had enough to be satisfied put them both on the same level of obligation, and a woman can say Grace for the man.
Contemporary Judaism builds up so many levels of 'fence', and so many levels of distance between the original analyses and our present understanding of the law, that sometimes it's profound and powerful to go back to the original reasoning of a rule we practice on a regular basis. I've spent my whole life knowing that in most cases, a woman can't say Grace for a man, but I haven't given much deep thought to why. Some of the reasoning makes sense- I recognize why, in a dispute, we defer to the answer that leaves us on safest ground and don't assume the ruling that gives the most leeway. Other parts of the reasoning are sources of struggle for me- I do not have all the answers yet when it comes to Jewish gender roles, and why women are exempted from the Mitzvot in order to tend the household. But having the whole story in front of me is one of the reasons why this Daf Yomi program has been so enjoyable for me so far.
One of the things discussed is something that actually comes up fairly frequently in real life, so it's more interesting than a lot of other things in the Talmud: Can a woman lead Grace After Meals and be chiyyuv for a man? The fascinating answer is: Sometimes.
To review in case there are actually any goyim trying to follow along... Often rather than everyone saying a prayer, one person says the prayer and everyone else answers 'Amen'. The general rule is that a person answering Amen counts as if they'd said the prayer themself, especially if the person who said the prayer had intent to be 'chiyuv', to satisfy the obligation of the other people. There are a few reasons why this is practical and significant in Jewish practice, with the biggest being that books were once rare and a group of Jews might only have a single copy of the prayer, which might be difficult to share if everyone needed to say the prayer individually. And in some cases, where the prayer needed to be said simultaneously by a group, like the Shemoneh Esrei, reciting the prayer individually one at a time as the book is passed around might be impossible. Even today, where in most situations everyone can afford to have a copy of the prayers, there are a number of cases where by tradition we have one person recite and everyone say Amen, and Grace After Meals is one of them.
However, there is a principle that if you are not obligated to do a law, you cannot satisfy someone else's obligation. Women are exempted from a number of obligations on the basis that they are time-bound, positive commandments, which means that if there is a specific time of day where a commandment must be performed, and it is a positive requirement to do something rather than a prohibition, women don't have to do it. The reason for this is fairly sexist- the Talmud prioritizes the performance of their womanly household tasks over the performance of positive time-bound mitzvot. There is a debate between two Rabbis over whether the Grace After Meals is time-bound. Some say that since there are defined times for eating breakfast, lunch and dinner, it is a time-bound commandment. Others say that since we eat whenever we're hungry, it is not time-bound. In order to resolve this dispute, the Mishna rules that women have to say Grace After Meals, but according to one side, this is a Torah obligation and according to the other side this is only a Rabbinical obligation added as a 'fence' just in case the other side is right, since in any case, women are always allowed to perform the mitzvot that they are not obligated to perform.
Thus, since there is uncertainty about whether a woman is obligated to say Grace After Meals by the Torah, there is uncertainty about whether she can satisfy the obligation of a man to say Grace. According to the opinion of one side, since a woman is obligated to say Grace by the Torah, she can fulfill the obligation for a man. According to the other side, though, since the obligation is only Rabbinical, she cannot fulfill the obligation for a man with a Torah obligation.
But wait, there's more! The Gemara brings an ruling that stated that wives can say Grace for their husbands. So does that mean the opinion that women are obligated by the Torah is right? Not necessarily. According to the opinion that women are obligated by the Torah, we're okay. But according to the other opinion that it's Rabbinical, women can say Grace for their husbands only when the husband's obligation to say Grace is Rabbinical! When is this? The Talmud derives that there is a minimum amount of food that obligates you to say Grace, because the commandment to say Grace is 'v'achalta v'savata uverachta' : You will eat and you will be satisfied, and you will bless the Lord. Thus, if you eat but not enough to be satisfied, you do not need to bless, according to the Torah. But the Rabbis added a blessing you say when you haven't eaten enough to say the full Grace, so this only a Rabbinical obligation to say Grace. Thus a woman's Rabbinical obligation to say Grace because eating might not be considered time bound and a man's Rabbinical obligation to say Grace even when he hasn't had enough to be satisfied put them both on the same level of obligation, and a woman can say Grace for the man.
Contemporary Judaism builds up so many levels of 'fence', and so many levels of distance between the original analyses and our present understanding of the law, that sometimes it's profound and powerful to go back to the original reasoning of a rule we practice on a regular basis. I've spent my whole life knowing that in most cases, a woman can't say Grace for a man, but I haven't given much deep thought to why. Some of the reasoning makes sense- I recognize why, in a dispute, we defer to the answer that leaves us on safest ground and don't assume the ruling that gives the most leeway. Other parts of the reasoning are sources of struggle for me- I do not have all the answers yet when it comes to Jewish gender roles, and why women are exempted from the Mitzvot in order to tend the household. But having the whole story in front of me is one of the reasons why this Daf Yomi program has been so enjoyable for me so far.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-23 03:43 am (UTC)If a man is single, is he exempt from time-bound obligations because he has to fulfill the womanly household tasks? (Or is it assumed he will keep a slovenly bachelor pad?) If an opposite-sex couple is in a situation where the woman is the bread-winner and the man the home-maker, would he then be exempt from the time-bound obligations but she bound to fulfill them? (Or would only very liberal denominations take this interpretation?)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-23 12:32 pm (UTC)It is rare that the Gemara even contemplates a situation where a woman earns money, and usually these are difficult situations where the husband is physically unable to earn, and the woman is forced to undertake difficult, humiliating, or sometimes just plain unusual tasks to feed her children.
Needless to say, this is not the world we live in now, even in the most cloistered Orthodox communities. The great difficulty facing the Modern Orthodox world right now is the struggle to live with our commitment to rules that we know quite well were designed to work for a cultural milieu we don't inhabit. The great difficulty facing the Conservative Jewish world is the struggle to live with having forsaken rules that have been observed by their ancestors for more than a thousand years.
So, to now answer your questions, according to the Talmud, no, a single man is not exempted from these commandments because his obligations toward his family and toward Torah are not understood to conflict with those commandments. A single woman is still exempted because she is understood to perform those household tasks in her father's house. A woman who is the family's breadwinner is in the unfortunate situation where the Torah expects her to be fulfilling all of the household obligations as well, and is therefore still exempted from those laws, whether she in actuality does perform them. And yes, more liberal denominations say this is ridiculous and welcome women into the performance of these obligations.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-23 03:36 pm (UTC)The liberal (and cultural) Jews I know feel that the old rules were appropriate for then but are not appropriate for now, and see no conflict in failing to follow them now. I've gotten the impression from them that they think that those who follow the old rules are actually misogynist, which is evidenced by the fact that they follow those rules. It sounds like you're telling me that this isn't entirely true, that people who follow the old rules may be misogynist in action, but it is only because their devotion to God is greater than their devotion to any human beings, and that if somehow God were to change the old rules they would be grateful that they were allowed to treat women with the dignity we deserved. Is my understanding correct?
And again, thanks for being willing to address all these ignorant questions of mine. I would like to think I'm progressing away from being the child who does not know how to ask towards being the wise child. But still a child. :-P
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-23 04:17 pm (UTC)For purposes of this principle, Jewish identity is about tribal affiliation, not religious practice. If a Jew is in trouble, I don't care if they are the most secular, non-affiliated Jew in the world or the most stringency-obsessed Chasid, my obligation to do what I can to help them is the same.
So this idea of 'denomination' is rather muddled. Most Jews move in and out of different Jewish communities at different moments, maintaining both that general sense of communal connection and a sense for a particular community of shared values. As a basic example, I have cousins who are affiliated with Chabad, who are affiliated with Orthodox Judaism, who are affiliated with Conservative Judaism, who are affiliated with Reform Judaism, and who refuse to affiliate. I go to all of their Bar and Bat Mitzvot. When I do that, I'm attending as a Jew rather than as an Orthodox Jew. For example, there is a requirement to have ten Jewish men in a room in order to say certain prayers. If three of those men are Orthodox, three are Reform, and four are Conservative, it counts. And if it's in a Conservative egalitarian synagogue that counts women, Orthodox women also count, though they may ask not to be included in the count out of deference to their beliefs.
There are significant differences between Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism on doctrine. Conservative Judaism believes that the canon of Jewish law is still open for reconsideration. If a law based on an old principle is deemed incompatible with our modern understandings of ethics, it can be reconsidered and changed. They share this doctrine with Reform Jews- the difference between Conservative and Reform Jews is that Conservative Judaism believes that if they can find a way to save a law, they should. Orthodox Jews hold that the Talmudic and post-Talmudic canon of Jewish law cannot be rejected. Specifically, Modern Orthodoxy believes that one can find a way to fully observe Jewish law while still living within Western society as participating members.
But this is doctrine. In practice the boundary between Conservative and Modern Orthodox Jewry is more slippery. In my town the Conservative and MO shuls are three blocks apart and many people are members of both, and find value in both. The reason is what I mentioned in my last comment: There is a struggle between valuing the perpetuation of tradition and valuing the ability to effectively change laws to accommodate a changing society, and some people find their balance between them by participating in both communities.
It sounds like you're telling me that this isn't entirely true, that people who follow the old rules may be misogynist in action, but it is only because their devotion to God is greater than their devotion to any human beings, and that if somehow God were to change the old rules they would be grateful that they were allowed to treat women with the dignity we deserved. Is my understanding correct?
No, this is not what I was claiming. There are Orthodox Jews who are misogynists, just as there are liberal Jews who are misogynists. Many people, even non-Jews, are misogynists. There is no inherent linkage between misogyny and Orthodox Judaism. And while there are some rules in Orthodox Judaism that I think do restrict women, I believe there are also rules that empower them. If you ask most Orthodox Jewish women I believe that they would agree with me. But if you got rid of the restrictive laws tomorrow by fiat of God, many Orthodox Jews of both gender would be grateful, and some would be upset.
I don't want to claim that Orthodox Jews are secretly enlightened and are just being restricted by God's law. I do want to suggest that just because a Jew practices a law doesn't mean they claim to understand it or agree with it. Judaism is a religion that traditionally encourages us to perform laws even if we don't understand them, and it's also a religion that traditionally encourages us to question laws we don't understand. The latter value is shared by virtually every denomination of Judaism, while the former is now reserved only to the more tradition-minded denominations.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-23 02:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-23 06:06 am (UTC)This is the part I find the weirdest. The rest all seems to follow from this, but I don't understand why this would be true.
To be honest, it reminds me of the opposite of some Christian interpretations of the Crucifixion--because Jesus was NOT obligated to die, he was able to fulfill the obligation of everyone else to die.
Matthew (who else would this be? :-P)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-23 12:14 pm (UTC)I may also not have been clear. When I say 'obligated' I mean, 'obligated to perform a mitzvah', that is, a commandment. If a person who isn't obligated in a commandment performs one, it's not necessarily a worthless gesture, but the act does not have the status of 'the completion of a commandment' because the person wasn't commanded to do the act. And therefore a person who is obligated can't let the non-obligated person's act stand in for their performance of the commandment.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-26 06:23 pm (UTC)Thank you!
(no subject)
Date: 2012-08-27 12:23 am (UTC)