Q&A: Who Has Not Made Me a Woman
Who Has Not Made Me a Woman
Question
Hello Rabbi, many people ask me about the blessing “who has not made me a woman” and the chauvinism that this blessing expresses. Of course, when I was young and studied in yeshiva, I learned very nice and pleasant answers to questions like this, but today I understand that those answers are far from satisfactory, and I really have difficulty with this blessing. I don’t feel any reason to thank God for not having been born a woman. What does the Rabbi think?
Answer
Hello Noam. The accepted explanation is that a woman is commanded in fewer commandments, and therefore one recites the blessing. (For that reason, in tractate Horayot a man takes precedence over a woman in rescue, just as a priest takes precedence over an ordinary Israelite. And that is simply because of the number of commandments, not necessarily because of any essential superiority.) Perhaps there is also, in the background, some disparagement of her status and joy that I was not made like her; I do not know. That, perhaps, I would not accept today, unless we made it symmetrical and the woman too would recite, “who has not made me a man” (so that each person rejoices in their lot and their role).
Discussion on Answer
Sorry, here it is:
http://blog.nli.org.il/%D7%94%D7%94%D7%95%D7%92%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%96-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A3-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%A8-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A2%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%99/?utm_source=activetrail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tochen8mar2018
With God’s help, 25th of the Omer, 5778
It is hard to believe that Rabbi Abraham Farissol invented an alternative blessing formula on his own. It is reasonable to assume that the formula “who has made me a woman and not a man” in women’s prayer was an ancient version in the customs of Italy or Provence, and that Rabbi Abraham Farissol copied an existing text.
In his commentary on Ecclesiastes (edition of Rabbi Simhah Halevi Bamberger, Berlin 1938, available on HebrewBooks), Rabbi Abraham Farissol refers several times to Ecclesiastes’ words about woman. On p. 31 he writes against “the sect of men who hate marriage,” and says: “For in any case, two are better than one… for when one helps his fellow in the laborious and necessary work required of him, whether in a husband and wife or in partners, the two will have a good reward for their labor; and so too with two who labor in matters of intellect.”
The words of Ecclesiastes, “And I find woman more bitter than death,” Rabbi Abraham Farissol explains as condemning “the pursuit of the man who desires and has intercourse with her excessively.” By contrast, “He permitted: ‘See life with the woman whom you love’; by this he meant conducting oneself in such a way that life and health are drawn through sexual union… and this certainly is a man’s portion and his labor that he labors under the sun: to live with his wife and beget offspring in like kind. And in this vein our sages said: whoever marries a woman for her own sake merits life, as it is written, ‘See life with the woman.’” (p. 58).
The words of Ecclesiastes, “Which my soul still sought but I did not find; one man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I did not find,” Rabbi Abraham Farissol explains (p. 50) as astonishment at the existing situation in which women do not attain intellectual perfection, even though “she too is composed of matter and form like the man… so why should woman fall so astonishingly short of intellectual perfection, for their minds are light, that he did not find a woman among all these, that is, among all the perfections with which a man’s intellect is adorned he did not find [in her]… and how can the holy seed of man be turned into light and weak females, into perfumers, cooks, and bakers, who multiply words without understanding?”
To this, Ecclesiastes responds, in Rabbi Abraham Farissol’s interpretation: “For God made man, insofar as he is man, upright, complete in his existence, and meant to pursue intellectual matters, which is the essence of his creation”; but man and his wife confused the order of priorities and “sought out many schemes and thoughts, male and female together—‘schemes’ in the feminine plural form and ‘many’ in the masculine plural form, contrary to the rules of language; everything is mixed up and confused together, opposite to the upright intention of the divine creation, which was to strengthen form and intellect and subdue matter and desire. And this alludes to the first man, who was created upright and afterward, together with his wife or with the desires of his material side, sought out schemes and sinned.”
It seems to me that what he means is that once the order of priorities changed and material desire became primary in relation to intellect, woman was channeled into materiality, since men benefited from her abilities to provide them with material pleasure; and thus woman lost the aspiration for intellectual elevation. It is highly likely that Rabbi Abraham Farissol would have joined the conclusion reached in the next generation by Rabbi Samuel Archuvolti, that rabbis ought to support and encourage women whose souls yearn to grow in Torah.
On Rabbi Abraham Farissol’s Torah scholarship and thought, see the article by my late father, Prof. David Samuel Lewinger, “Selections from the Book ‘Magen Avraham’ by Abraham Farissol” (Hatzofeh LeHokhmat Yisrael 12 [1928], pp. 294-297), and Rabbi S. Bamberger’s introduction to “Commentary on Ecclesiastes by Abraham Farissol” (Berlin 1938). Both are cited in the links to the Wikipedia entry “Farissol, Abraham.”
Best regards, Shatz Lewinger
In paragraph 6, line 3:
… would have joined the conclusion reached in the next generation…
The words of Rabbi Samuel Archuvolti in his book Ma’ayan Ganim were mentioned by later authorities, and among those who quote him is Rabbi Yitzhak Nissim in his letter to Rebbetzin Farha Sassoon, where he writes in 1930: “And I, poor as I am, wrote on this subject a lengthy responsum, with powerful proofs from the Talmud and halakhic decisors, medieval authorities and later authorities, that women whose hearts move them to engage in the Oral Torah—it is the duty of the sages of their generation to strengthen their hands and bolster their arms.” (Leklal Ulefrat – Hilkhot Ketzuvot, I, Jerusalem 2018, p. 154).
Rabbi Nissim writes there: “It is my intention, without a vow, to print this responsum soon… and perhaps the Creator of the world will place it in the hearts of many women to engage in Torah, and they will spread the light of their Torah to their surroundings, especially to the members of their household…”
The above-mentioned responsum was lost, but Rabbi Nissim brings important sources on the subject in his responsum to Rabbi Akiva Tannenbaum in 1961 (Leklal Ulefrat, I, pp. 158-169), and there the Rabbi mentions, among other things, the halakhic opinion of Rebbetzin Mercada Arukh of Alexandria, to which the rabbi of Alexandria, Rabbi Abraham Israel, responds with great respect. For a historical and halakhic analysis of Rabbi Nissim’s responsum, see Dr. Yael Levine’s article, “Rabbi Nissim’s Responsum Concerning Women and Torah Study,” Akdamot 13, pp. 33-56.
The life and writings of Rabbi Samuel Archuvolti were collected by Dror Schwartz in his article “Rabbi Samuel Archuvolti – His Life and Writings, Responsa and Letters,” Asufot 7 (1993), pp. 69-156.
Best regards, Shatz Lewinger
My question is: to what extent is it permitted to change the wording of the prayer?
For me personally, it makes me not pray, because it’s hard for me to say something that I can’t identify with. Because of that, it’s a bit pointless from my perspective to ask whether it’s permitted or not, because I’m either going to change it or not pray. And all the explanations—that the man is really blessing because he is obligated in more commandments, and the woman for being made according to God’s will and therefore not obligated in commandments—don’t help. Because it doesn’t matter what the intention is; what I hear is something else, and every time I say it, it hurts me all over again, and I believe it also hurts many women and girls.
Also the phrase “who has not made me a gentile” bothers me. Because it’s not in my character to be a condescending person. It’s awful to say every day a sentence that goes against my character. I would be much happier to bless, “who has made me an Israelite.”
I really don’t think there is any place here to be hurt. But if that is your assumption and you are not putting it up for discussion, then I won’t discuss it. Clearly, changing it is preferable to not reciting the blessing at all. But why can’t you say “who has made me according to His will”? Why is that hurtful?
“Who has not made me a gentile,” in my view, is clearly because of the obligation in commandments, and I don’t see anything hurtful in that. This is despite the fact that it is clear that the attitude of Jewish law toward a gentile is discriminatory. But the blessing does not reflect that, in my opinion.
I think personality is not supposed to be a parameter here. If it goes against your values, then there is a problem. But if it makes it hard for you because of your personality, then you need to overcome it.
And again, in this case there is no standard formula that you can recite instead. “Who has made me an Israelite” is a change to the fixed blessing formula, and that is problematic. When a man says “who has made me according to His will,” that is not a change in the blessing formula, so it is easier.
If we’re looking for symmetry, you could also go in the other direction. Let them keep the blessing “who has made me according to His will,” and we men will bless: “who has not made me according to His will.”
By the way, there’s something interesting here on the subject:
Version=&dscnt=0&frbg=&scp.scps=scope%3A%28NNL%29&tab=default_tab&dstmp=1524590370508&srt=rank&mode=Basic&&dum=true&vl(freeText0)=who%20has%20not%20made%20me%20a%20woman&vid=NLI