A Look at Torah Study for Women and Female Scholars

• Introduction • A. The theoretical level: between Talmud Torah and the commandment to study Talmud Torah – the commandment to study Talmud Torah and the abrogation of Torah; scholarship and halakha; two parts of the study of Lishma – the obligation of women; the blessing of the Torah for women; conclusions; a return to the Sages • B. The relationship between the issue of offerings and the issue of blessings • Appendix: The practical level and the form of discourse; the status of policy considerations; some comments on the discourse; the content of the study; the current situation; disruptions to the discourse; practical directions • Summary

introduction

In recent years, there has been a great development in the field of women's Torah study, to the point that many present it as a kind of revolution. This development is occurring on two main levels: theoretical-halakhic (or meta-halakhic) and practical.

On the theoretical-halachic level, there is a growing consensus that although women are not obligated to study Torah – and even though the Talmud contains various expressions and sayings that ostensibly suggest that women's study of Torah is forbidden, or at least unimportant, and perhaps even harmful – in fact, there is no prohibition on such study, and at least in our time it is also of great benefit and importance. On the practical level – today, women study Torah on a larger scale and in fields that they traditionally did not engage in; some of them even advance and reach a high level of study and even teach Halacha in various fields.

In this article, I would like to address these two levels and highlight some relevant aspects that, in my opinion, are not receiving sufficient attention. I will start by saying that I am writing this as someone who strongly supports the aforementioned development and has contributed and continues to contribute to it as much as I can. I see a need to mention this fact because, following what I have written in the past (hereinafter: my articles in "Makor Rishon")[1] Many misunderstandings arose, and there were even those who did not understand at all the direction in which my words were directed. This article is therefore intended to clarify the picture.

I would like to point out that this discussion involves a number of halakhic, methodological, and meta-halakhic aspects that I cannot fully address and substantiate within this framework. I will also not be able to address here contradictory sources and opposing opinions;[2] My main intention in this article is to express a reasoned position on the issue of Torah study for women and to paint the picture – as I see it – in broad brushstrokes and from a scholarly perspective (where necessary, I will refer to places where I have expanded on some of the points). Indeed, an equally important part of examining this issue is the meta-halakhic discussion that also concerns current events and the form of discourse; scholarly clarification can illuminate and improve it as well, and therefore part of the article will deal with these aspects.

The article is divided into two chapters and an appendix: In the first chapter, I will distinguish between Talmud Torah and the commandment to study Talmud Torah,[3] I will argue that women are obligated to study Torah even if they are not obligated by the commandment to study Torah; in the second chapter I will demonstrate the theoretical distinction through a detailed analysis of a Talmudic issue; and in the appendix I will discuss the implications of the theoretical picture on female Torah study in practice.

A. The theoretical level – between Talmud Torah and the commandment to study Talmud Torah

The accepted halachic picture is that women are not obligated to study Torah. Beyond that, various sources in the Mishnah, Talmud, and subsequent literature indicate that female study is inappropriate and perhaps even harmful (although not necessarily forbidden). Even if we do not accept the strict interpretation that sees this as an actual prohibition, it is still difficult to deny that the reality of our day deviates from the model proposed to us by Chazal and our first and last rabbis.

Of course, in the past there were also exceptional women who engaged in Torah study, but the exception proves the rule: encouraging every woman to study Torah, and fostering female excellence in learning, seem to contradict the policy of most of the sages of the generations, and this fact occasionally arouses controversy around it (although I have the impression that it is diminishing).

Some justify this phenomenon as a kind of surrender to the spirit of the times, thereby inviting criticism of the "reform spirit," or feminism, that is, surrender to external values and fashions. Others see this as a proper policy in the first place and speak of an important female contribution to Torah study (although they usually do not refer to the sources that deny this). Indeed, to put things in their proper context, we will have to open a theoretical, halakhic, and meta-halakhic discussion regarding Talmud Torah and the commandment to study Talmud Torah.

The commandment of studying Torah and the cancellation of Torah

The Gemara (Vows 8:1) states:

And Rav Giddel said, Rav said: He who says, "I will testicles and change this chapter, I will change this tractate" – a great vow, a vow to the God of Israel.

And isn't he sworn and standing, and no oath applies to an oath? May the Lord be pleased with him: Even if he were to be a slave, he would have a great reputation?! May the Lord be pleased with him, because he was a free spirit in Kiryat Shema, morning and evening, because he was a soldier who swore an oath to her.

The language of the Gemara indicates that in order to fulfill the commandment to study Torah, it is sufficient to recite the Shema in the morning and evening (or to study a chapter in the morning and a chapter in the evening, as explained in the issue of offerings, 111. See below in chapter 2); and from the plain meaning of the Gemara, it appears that anything beyond this minimum is not really a mitzvah, and therefore an oath applies to it.

The commentators on Atar (see "Mifrash", Rosh, Ran, and others) commented on this point and addressed the boundary of study beyond the minimum in various ways: some indeed believed that study beyond these two chapters was a matter of permission; others spoke of an existential mitzvah; and some of the early ones saw the additional study as a real obligation, but not from the standpoint of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah but rather from midrash or from the discourses of Kabbalah (see Ran, ibid., 5:11).

How does this fit with the concept of "abolition of the Torah"? Even if in some of its Talmudic manifestations this concept can be understood in different ways,[4] In the accepted view, this means that there is an obligation to study whenever possible, and that anyone who does not do so nullifies the Torah. Ostensibly – at least according to some opinions on the issue of vows – there is no room for a claim against a person who did not study Torah in his free time, since he is not obligated to do so at all; even if it is said that there is an existential positive commandment here, it is still not clear how its nullification can be considered a prohibition.

It is difficult to dispute the value and centrality of Torah study, and yet it seems that although the Torah certainly wants us to learn as much as we can, it only obligates us to a minimal obligation and leaves everything beyond that to the voluntary decision of the individual. It turns out that we are expected to do so even without a halakhic obligation,[5] Following the recognition of the importance of the Torah and its study; and although there is no halakhic obligation to study whenever possible, there is a demand to do so and there is also a demand for the abrogation of the Torah. The concept of "abrogation of the Torah", according to this proposal, is not halakhic but revolves around the extra-halakhic remainder of the matter (as with regard to a person who does not behave in a manner that morality requires or who does not act in accordance with the letter of the law).

In my article on explanations, I explained the matter based on the claim that there are two types of norms that are not defined as formal halakhic obligations: norms that are not basic and sufficiently important (such as the degree of chassidut or the precepts of the law); and norms that are basic and very important. The first type does not enter the halakhic framework because there is really no obligation to observe it; however, the second type does not enter formal halakhic rules so as not to belittle its importance, that is, so that this norm is not seen as an ordinary mitzvah equal to any other mitzvah.[6] According to my suggestion, the meaning of the statement "and Talmud Torah against all" (Mishnah, Part 1, a) is that Torah study is such a fundamental and important matter, and precisely for this reason it is not defined as a binding halakhic requirement. Below, in Chapter 2, I will demonstrate this distinction by analyzing two Talmudic issues and comparing them.

Scholarly and Halacha

At the beginning of the section on My Laws (Leviticus 26:3) it is said: “If you walk in My laws and keep My commandments and do them.” Rashi (ibid.) explains the trinity of verbs following Chazal and writes:

If you walk in my law – can this be the fulfillment of the mitzvot? When he says, “And you shall keep my law,” then the fulfillment of the mitzvot means, what am I fulfilling “if you walk in my law”? That you will be diligent in the Torah.

And you shall keep my commandments – they labored in the Torah in order to keep and fulfill them, as it is said, “And you shall teach them and observe to do them.”

His words indicate that there are three levels of reference to the commandments: 1. Walk in my statutes – labor in the Torah; 2. Keep my commandments – labor in the Torah to learn and keep;[7] 3. And you made them – practical existence.

Therefore, the picture presented in Rashi is that beyond the practical observance of the mitzvot, there is also an obligation to study so that we can observe them – that is, study that is a mitzvah instrument for practical observance – and alongside it there is an obligation to study for the sake of study and understanding themselves (which is what he calls "labor in Torah").

It seems that this category is what we call "learning," that is, studying for the sake of understanding and memorization, but not necessarily for the sake of actual practice (although it obviously has halachic and practical implications). In the book "Nefesh HaChayim" (Chapter 4, Chapter 3), Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin refers to this as studying "to add a lesson and to discuss," and cites the words of the Rosh (Nedrim 62:1, 45 and Davar Behon) who explains that studying Torah for its own sake means "for the sake of the Torah."

Both Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin and the author of the "Tanya" (Likkuti Amirim, Chapter 6) claim that the purpose of studying this section is to cling to God (i.e., to His will); this is a study whose main purpose is to serve God and cling to Him through the study itself, in addition to the service of God that is done through the observance of the commandments. Clarifying the way of thinking of the Torah and the profound ideas that underlie the Halacha is clinging to God, the Almighty, and the essence of Torah study.

This can be likened to the difference between science and technology. Scientists engage in scientific research to understand nature, while empirical experience is only a means to this understanding; their goal is the understanding of nature, not the application. In contrast, technologists use the laws of nature to create various and useful applications; for them, scientific study is a means, not an end. This may well illustrate the difference between halakhah and scholarship: halakhah study is analogous to technology, while scholarship is analogous to scientific research.

Rabbi Israel of Salant in his article "Law and Justice"[8] Expands the scope on this matter. One of the pieces of evidence he brings to bear is the parshas of the rebellious son and the teacher. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 71a) cites a baraita that teaches that "a rebellious son and a teacher has not been and will not be. And why is it written? Seek and receive a reward"; and Rabbi Israel of Salant wonders whether we really need these verses so that we can receive a reward for studying Torah and why the parshas intended for application are not enough.

Rabbi Israel Maslenit explains that the Gemara's intention is that Parashat Ben Sorer and Moreh was written to teach the principle of "seek and receive reward," that is, to teach us that the study of all Torah passages (and not just Parashat Ben Sorer, which was intended to teach about the general) has value in itself and is not intended only for the sake of application. The opposite is true: Studying for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvot is only an instrument of a mitzvah, and it is not about it that the words that describe the importance and centrality of Talmud Torah were said. We have come to learn that the essence of Talmud Torah is the first category in Rashi's words above, study for the sake of study, that is, scholarship.

It seems to me that the words of Rabbi Israel of Salant and Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin reflect the basis of the accepted approach in the yeshiva world: studying Torah for the sake of studying (and not only for the sake of observing Halacha) as the focus of engagement in the service of God; about this it is said, "And study Torah against all."

Two parts of learning Lishma – Obligation for women

If we return to the distinction made in the section before the previous one – the distinction between the halachic obligation (the mitzvah) and the obligation that explains – we can ask: Which of the two categories of learning does the commandment to study Talmud Torah deal with, and which category does the remainder that explains belong to? Reciting Shema, or memorizing a chapter in the morning and evening, does not lead to knowledge of the halakhah nor to the existence of any halakhah; if this is the model for fulfilling the commandment to study Talmud Torah, then it is clearly evident that this is not a learning whose goal is practical existence. Although reciting Shema is an act that concerns accepting the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, from the perspective of studying Talmud Torah, what is involved here is engagement in Torah for the sake of engagement itself. The obligation that explains, the obligation to study at any free time, also deals with learning in itself, since the value of learning as a tool is tested through its contribution to existence. In other words: If I know the practical laws and do not fail to observe them, there is no reason to sue me for abrogating Torah simply because I did not study law; therefore, it turns out that this lawsuit also deals with the learned category.

We have learned that the essence of the commandment to study Torah is to engage in Torah for a minimum amount of time each day; and beyond that, there is a duty from the commentators to delve into the ideas underlying Halacha as much as we can (labor in Torah). These two obligations deal with learning that application is not its goal. Studying for the sake of Halacha knowledge and for the sake of fulfilling the mitzvot is not included in Torah study and is nothing more than an instrument of a mitzvah.[9]

Who is obligated in each of these categories? We have seen that according to the law, women are exempt from the commandment of Talmud Torah, but these words are said with regard to the halakhic obligation (the mitzvah). As we have seen, the mitzvah is a minor part (reciting the Shema morning and evening), and therefore one must ask: What about the part that is explained? Are women exempt from it as well?

In my article on Sabra, I showed that obligations based on Sabra bind all who come from the world, at least everyone who understands the Sabra underlying them and that it is relevant to them. For example, Gentiles are also obligated by every obligation based on Sabra, as Rav Nissim Gaon wrote (in his introduction to Shas printed at the beginning of Tractate Berakhot): "Everything that is in the Obnata Deliva - a person has already committed to it from the beginning." In the same place, I presented evidence that even minors are obligated by obligations based on Sabra (such as: keeping an oath, the prohibition of slaughtering an animal, and other obligations that the sons of Noah are obligated by). Despite this, Gentiles are not obligated by Talmud Torah, and it is even forbidden for them (see Sanhedrin 51a), and apparently this study is not relevant to them (because their form of connection to God differs from that of a Jew; and this is evidence that they are also exempt from fulfilling the commandments that are learned in this study).

The basic principle is that in obligations that originate from a commandment of the Torah, it itself determines who is obligated to do so, and therefore anyone who is not commanded to do so is exempt from them; however, in obligations that are based on interpretation, everyone who understands the interpretation and anyone to whom the interpretation pertains is obligated. There is no reason to exempt someone who meets these criteria. The conclusion in our case is that women are indeed exempt fromThe commandment of studying Torah But they mustTalmud TorahAnd the same goes for the deaf and the little ones, of course (as long as they understand the explanation).

Therefore, by virtue of the interpretation, for anyone to whom observance of the Halacha and Torah pertains (i.e., anyone who is Jewish), studying the Torah is the most excellent form of devotion to God; and anyone who understands this interpretation is obligated to observe it. The conclusion we have reached, surprisingly, is that the fixed standard requiring reading two chapters every day does not apply to women, but the obligation to study and deepen as much as possible, whenever possible, applies to women just as much as to men.

Torah Blessing for Women

A clear halachic expression of this image is found in the laws of the blessing of the Torah, and in particular in the laws of the blessing of the Torah for women.[10] If the blessing of the Torah were the usual blessing of the commandments, it would have to be said about the commandment of studying Torah and what is included in it, but in my article on the blessing of the Torah I showed that the more plausible reason for the blessing of the Torah is what some later scholars wrote ("Emek Bracha", section 1, p. 5, and more) that it is a blessing of praise and not a blessing of the commandments.

In that article, I argued that the foundation of the Torah blessing is praise for the excellence of the Torah, and its meaning is gratitude to God for having received the Torah; hence, the blessing pertains primarily to the part of Talmud Torah that is expounded (teaching) and not to the commandment of Talmud Torah.[11] It is the recognition of the importance of learning as a way to cling to God and His will that brings us to the understanding that there is an obligation to study Torah to the best of our ability; and it is that same recognition that inspires the need to recite the blessing of praise upon receiving the Torah.

And here, in the "Shulchan Aruch" (Orach Chaim, chapter 44, section 14) the author ruled: "Women bless the blessing of the Torah"; and the "Magen Avraham" (ibid., section 14) and the "Bi'aor Halacha" (Ibid.) explained that this is because they are obligated to learn the laws that apply to them. Their words indicate that they assume that this is a blessing of the commandments, and therefore the matter is very puzzling: Aren't women exempt from the commandment of studying Torah, and if so, why does the obligation to learn the laws that apply to them require a blessing of the commandments? Above, we saw that learning in order to know how to fulfill is a means of a mitzvah and is not part of the essence of studying Torah.

In light of the above, it seems that things should be explained in a different way. First, since women are exempt from the commandment to study Torah, then the fact that they are required to study the laws that pertain to them proves that such study is not within the scope of the commandment to study Torah but only as an instrument for fulfilling a mitzvah (as we saw above); hence, if they are required to recite the Torah blessing, it is proven that it is a blessing of praise and not a blessing of commandments, and in any case it is clear that women recite the Torah blessing because they are also included in the praise for giving the Torah to the people of Israel.

As stated, the praise is for the virtue of the Torah and its study (teaching) and not for the commandment of Talmud Torah (of which the obligatory part is only the morning and evening recitation of Shema), and in this we have seen that they belong as men; therefore, the question of why they are obligated to recite the Torah blessing does not arise at all. The Torah blessing is the "leshem yichud" that is said before the study of the non-obligatory part and its purpose is to deepen the understanding of why we do it. If it is not a mitzvah, the study is because of the virtue of the Torah; and the blessing expresses the recognition of this and the praise to God, the Almighty, who gave us this Torah.

Conclusions

From the brief discussion within the framework of the Torah study, we can establish the initial distinction between the commandment of Talmud Torah and Talmud Torah study, and also conclude that women are obligated (or belong) in Talmud Torah – and in particular, surprisingly, in the academic part of Talmud Torah. Of course, they also need to study in order to know how to observe, but this is not the essence of Talmud Torah study but only as an instrument of the mitzvah. The conclusion from all of the above is that women’s exemption from the commandment of Talmud Torah study is minor and not very significant (they are not obligated to recite the morning and evening Shema, at least according to the Talmud Torah study law). Of course, we should not forget the flexibility that characterizes the second part of the study: they are supposed to study only to the extent that they can within the constraints, but this limitation also applies to men (with the exception of the morning and evening Shema).

In passing, I would also like to note that instrumental study – that is, study in order to know what to do – is not necessarily the study of abridged books and rulings of halachic law. Anyone who is familiar with halachic law knows that the greater the scope of study, the more the observance becomes more and more praiseworthy. Study of non-halachic and non-practical issues also contributes to the determination of halachic law in various ways (through evidence of a certain way of thinking, halachic analogies, and the like), and correct scholarly analysis is a condition for the determination of halachic law. Therefore, even study in order to know what to do – which by all accounts also requires women – can (and perhaps should) be expressed in comprehensive scholarly study of all parts of the Torah. The difference between study in order to observe and scholarship for its own sake is mainly in the level of motivation for study and less in the essence of the study, its content, and its form. Once again, we see that there is no significant difference between men and women in the matter of Talmud Torah.

Back to the sages

As I mentioned, in the words of Chazal there are several sources from which it emerges that it is inappropriate to teach Torah to women, and this may even be harmful. For example, in the Mishnah (Sotah 3, 4) it is stated:

Hence Ben Azzai says: A man is obligated to teach his daughter Torah, so that if she drinks, she will know that the right is attached to her.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Whoever teaches his daughter Torah, it is as if she is learning prayer.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: A woman wants a sabbath, and prayers from nine sabbaths, and celibacy. He would say: A pious man is a fool, and a wicked man is naked, and a woman is celibate, and the beatings of celibates, these are from the world.

In the Gemara on Atar (ibid. 21a) it is stated:

Rabbi Abbahu: 49 Dr. A. As it is written, “I am wisdom, I have dwelt in cunning” – since wisdom entered into man, cunning entered with him.

In Yerushalmi (Sotah 3, 4) more harsh things are stated:

Matrona asked Rabbi Lazar: Why did one sin in the matter of the calf, and they died three deaths? He said to her: A woman's wisdom is not except in her spinning, as it is written, "And every woman who is wise in heart spins with her hands."

Hyrcanus his son said to him: In order not to return a single word of the Torah, did you lose three hundred kors of tithe from me every year?! He said to him: Let the words of the Torah be burned and not given to women.

The following were brought to the fore in the Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Talmud Torah, Chapter 1, Halacha 13):

A woman who has studied Torah has a reward, but it is not the same as a man's reward, because she was not commanded, and anyone who does something that he is not commanded to do does not have a reward like the reward of the mitzvah he did, but less than that. Even though she has a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah, because most women do not have the intention of learning, but they derive Torah words from the words of the prophets according to their own weakness of mind. The Sages said, "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is as if she had learned prayer, because things are said in the Oral Torah, but the Written Torah is not to be taught to her at first, and if she does learn, it is not as if she had taught prayer."

The words of Maimonides indicate that although the principle of the law does not refer to an actual prohibition but rather to an exemption, the Sages nevertheless commanded that he not study Torah because most women are not inclined to learn.[12]

Now we must ask: What part of Torah study were all these sayings said about? Will reciting the Shema morning and evening lead women to cunning? And what will happen if they recite the Shema for the sake of receiving the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven and not for the sake of studying Torah? It is not clear that this refers to the halakhic study that is done in order to fulfill, since women also need to know what to do; hence these references do not concern the commandment of studying Torah, but rather Talmud Torah. This refers specifically to Talmudic and halakhic study, learning. Although we have seen that women belong in Talmudic Torah and are even obligated in it, that is, in studying halakhic and talmudic study, and are exempt from the commandment of Talmud Torah, it is precisely the learning part that the Sages commanded not to teach them, lest they take the words to mean the words of the rabbis and turn into cunning.

B. The relationship between the issue of offerings and the issue of blessings

The issue of offerings (Zet 12b) further elaborates on the insight we saw in the issue of vows (8a). First, we will see this through a step-by-step study of it:

Rabbi Ami: From the words of Rabbi Yossi, we learn that even if a person does not read one chapter of Shacharit and one chapter of Ariv, he fulfills the commandment, "This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth."

Rav Ami greatly minimizes the commandment of Talmud Torah; in his opinion, one chapter in the morning and one in the evening is enough to fulfill the obligation.

Rabbi Yochanan, in the name of Rashbi, extols and says:

Rabbi Yochanan said on behalf of Rabbi Ben Yochi: Even if a person does not call anything but Kiryat Shema morning and evening, the law states, "It will not be touched."

In fact, Rashbi empties the commandment of studying Torah of any practical content, since reciting the Shema morning and evening is a mitzvah that is done in any case.

Why is it so important for the Rashbi to empty the commandment to study Torah of its content? It seems that his intention is that studying Torah is not the same as the commandment to study Torah: the commandment to study Torah is a formal and minor matter; everything else is a matter that does not belong to formal law. Because of the importance of studying Torah, it should be done not because of the commandment but because of the understanding of the importance and thoroughness of the Torah, as one who is not commanded and does.

At this point, a disagreement appears in the Gemara between two rabbis regarding the words of Rashbi:

And this is forbidden to be said before the people of the land.

And Rava said: It is a mitzvah to say it before the people of the land.

Why is it forbidden, according to the first Lishna, to say this before the people of the land? It seems that the reason for this is the fear that they will be content with reciting Shema morning and evening and will not learn any more; however, this reason is difficult to explain, since this is truly what the commandment to study Torah requires, and what is the fear? We must say that the Gemara assumes that reciting Shema morning and evening is the defined halachic obligation, but it is completely clear to it that there is also an obligation to learn beyond that – and the fear is that the people of the land will not understand this.

According to Rava, it is a mitzvah to say this before the people of the land. According to our method, it is said that it is a mitzvah to say this in order to explain to them the importance of studying Torah, which is why it is not included within the formal limits of the commandment to study Torah. According to our proposal, Rava does not disagree with the earlier Lishna regarding the limits of the commandment to study Torah and study Torah, but only with the tactics of behavior towards the people of the land.

In the next stage, the Gemara tells a story:

A cousin of Rabbi Yishmael's sister asked Rabbi Yishmael: For example, I, who have learned the entire Torah, what is the point of learning Ionian wisdom?

This scripture was read about him: "This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night"; go out and examine an hour that is neither day nor night, and learn from it the wisdom of the Ionians.

A few years ago, a student asked me about a contradiction in this story: If Ben-Dama did indeed learn the entire Torah, how could he not know the answer to this question itself? Isn't this part of the laws of Talmud Torah and abrogation of Torah? I answered him that Ben-Dama knew everything that the halakhah requires, but this question concerns what goes beyond the formal halakhic part; abrogation of Torah and the obligation to engage in Torah all the time do not belong to the formal halakhah, and therefore Ben-Dama asked whether there is still an obligation to do so. Rabbi Yishmael's answer is that there is an obligation to study day and night beyond the formal commandment, and therefore it is impossible to abrogate Torah even if a person has learned and knows the entire Torah (because there is an obligation to deepen one's learning). Rabbi Yishmael therefore also agrees with the view of Rabbi Yochanan and Rava presented at the beginning of the issue.

Ostensibly, Rabbi Yishmael disagrees with Rashbi, since Rashbi is content with reciting the Shema morning and evening, while Rabbi Yishmael demands a full day and night. Indeed, according to our path, there is no dispute before us: Rashbi deals with the first part of the verse, the commandment, for which reciting the Shema morning and evening is sufficient; and Rabbi Yishmael deals with the second part, learning for the sake of learning (learning).

In light of all of the above, the rest of the Gemara's words will be well explained: "And Dr. Shmuel bar Nachmani sailed." The Gemara states that the words of Rabbi Yishmael contradict the statement of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani, which is immediately quoted. The words are puzzling, since Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani is an Amora and his words apparently contradict the words of the Tannaim; however, the Gemara was not bothered by this fact and it mentions the dispute in a relaxed manner. Likewise, it is not clear why the Gemara ignores the fact that Rabbi Yishmael disagrees with Rashbi, whose words appeared in the issue earlier, and only mentions the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and the Amora Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani.

According to our method, the matter is not difficult. We have seen that Rabbi Yishmael does not disagree with Rashbi; both agree that for the fulfillment of the commandment to study Torah, it is sufficient to recite Shema morning and evening, but Rabbi Yishmael adds that there is another part beyond the formal obligation. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani disagrees with both of them (as we will see immediately), and therefore the Gemara only mentions this disagreement.

Let us now look at the words of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani:

When Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani, Rabbi Yonatan, said: This verse is neither an obligation nor a commandment, but a blessing. The Holy One, blessed be He, saw that the words of the Torah were very dear to him, as it is said, “And his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Joshua, are the words of the Torah so dear to you?! “This book of the Torah will not depart from your mouth.”

In the words of the Gemara, expressions that are not common in the Talmud appear. What is the difference between "obligation" and "mitzvah"? What does Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani have to say? We saw above that the Rashb'i and Rabbi Yishmael believe that Talmud Torah is not a formal obligation (=obligation) but rather a sabbatical obligation (=mitzvah); now Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani comes and disagrees with them. He claims that Talmud Torah is neither an obligation nor a mitzvah, but only a blessing that the blessed Joshua received from God. From this the Gemara learns that Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani did indeed disagree with the Tannaim who believed that it was a mitzvah, for he not only denies the concept of an obligation but also the concept that it is a mitzvah.

Apparently, Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani is the first to disagree with the system that all his predecessors agreed to; however, if we look at his words, it appears that he is not saying that there is no such obligation, but rather that the verse "not to be touched" is not an obligation and not a mitzvah but a blessing. If so, Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani disagrees with Rashbi and Rabbi Yishmael only in the interpretation of the verse and not in the actual law. In fact, he joins the opinion of all his predecessors and agrees that Talmud Torah has two parts: 1. The obligation that is learned from the commandment, and for it it is sufficient to recite Shema morning and evening; 2. The mitzvah – to study day and night.

Where does Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani learn these obligations (according to his theory that the verse "not to be touched" is nothing but a blessing)? It seems that in his opinion this is an opinion without a verse (and it is possible that from the very fact that God blesses Joshua we learn about the importance of the Torah), exactly as we explained above. Now it is clear why the Gemara does not make it difficult for Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani to hear the words of the Tannaim who disagree with him: there is no dispute here regarding Dina except only regarding the "meaning of those who seek," and there is no difficulty in the fact that Amora would disagree with Tannaim on the "meaning of those who seek."[13]

The issue ends with the following statement:

Tana Debi Rabbi Yishmael: The words of the Torah are not obligatory upon you, and you are not permitted to exempt yourself from them.

Rashi did interpret that the intention of the words was that we should learn with kindness and that this obligation should not be a burden on us, but according to our way, this can be interpreted as a direct continuation of the course of the issue: Tana Debi Rabbi Yishmael says that although studying Torah is not an obligation but a mitzvah, and ostensibly it is purely voluntary, yet you are not permitted to exempt yourself from it because there is a duty from the Shabbah to study day and night. The fact that there is no obligation here does not indicate that such study is not important, but rather that it is more important and fundamental than a regular halachic obligation. As we have seen, according to Rava this is exactly what needs to be taught to the people of the land so that they will understand the great importance of studying Torah.

Now we can also resolve the contradiction between the issue of offerings (Zet 12b) and the issue of blessings (3b) that many Acharit scholars have pointed out.

On the issue of blessings, we found the following:

Our Rabbis taught: “And you gathered your grain” – what should you learn to say? Since it is said, “This book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth,” can things be written as they are? You should learn to say “And you gathered your grain” – the custom of the people, the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: Can a person plow at the time of plowing, sow at the time of sowing, reap at the time of harvest, thresh at the time of threshing, and sow at the time of the wind? What Torah will there be for her?! Rather: While the Israelites are doing the will of a place – their work is done by others, as it is said, “And strangers shall stand and pasture their flocks,” etc.; and while the Israelites are not doing the will of a place – their work is done by themselves, as it is said, “And you shall gather your grain.” And what is more, the work of others is done by them, as it is said, “And you shall serve your enemy,” etc.

Abaye said: Many did as Rabbi Yishmael did – and it was accepted by them; as Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai did – and it was not accepted by them.

On the issue of minchat, we saw that according to Rashbi, reciting Shema morning and evening is sufficient, meaning that he is the one who eases the commandment of Talmud Torah, while Rabbi Yishmael is the one who is stricter and demands that one study day and night. In contrast, from the issue of berachot, it seems that they switch sides: Rashbi is actually stricter and demands that one study all the time and even refrain from work; and Rabbi Yishmael is the one who eases it. The latter have often dealt with this contradiction and have proposed various solutions to it.[14]

But according to our method, there is no difficulty. As we saw in the discussion on the issue of minachot, Rabbi Yishmael and Rashbi do not disagree with each other at all; they agree that the formal obligation of Talmud Torah is to recite the Shema morning and evening, and that whatever goes beyond that is a mitzvah of interpretation. On the issue of blessings, the discussion is within the limits of Torah abrogation, that is, it concerns only the mitzvah of interpretation and not the formal obligation, and here we find "contradictory" opinions: for Rabbi Yishmael, it is permissible to abrogate Torah in order to make a living (at least retroactively); whereas Rashbi is not permitted to abrogate Torah at all. However, all of this concerns the limits of the mitzvah alone and not the obligation. As I wrote above, on the issue of minachot, Rashbi was careful to empty the mitzvah of Talmud Torah of its content only to say that the obligation of interpretation is primary and important and cannot be ignored; and if so, it is no wonder that here he is very strict about it.

We have learned that the axis that separates the parts of the issue of offerings is the idea that studying Torah is not a mitzvah from the 13 commandments. The foundation of the obligation to study Torah day and night is the understanding of what Torah is, not the commandment to do so. Moreover, the Torah was careful not to place this obligation within a formal halakhic framework so as not to reduce Torah study to the level of a regular mitzvah from the 13 commandments.

Appendix: The practical level and the form of discourse

In the previous two chapters, I dealt with a halakhic-theoretical clarification of Talmud Torah in general and the obligation of women in particular; whereas this appendix concerns current events. Despite this, anyone who reads it carefully will see that all of the points in it are direct consequences of what we have seen above. This is a clear example of the importance of theoretical and conceptual clarification and its implications for the form of discourse and our points of departure.

The status of policy considerations

As we have seen, the Talmudic statements that deny women Torah study are based on policy and an assessment of reality. Such determinations are not halakha, and therefore they need to be examined in light of the changing reality. I believe this is one of the reasons why many today ignore the instructions of the Sages and recommend that women study Torah to the best of their ability. The assessment of reality today is that female study is important and certainly not harmful, and that it is not right to take recommendations made in one reality and apply them to a completely different reality.

Indeed, there are those with fundamentalist views who see the Talmudic recommendations as an eternally valid assessment of the essential nature of women, and therefore still support policies today that deny women Torah study. Sometimes the claim is also made that the burden of proof in this matter falls on those who seek to change (as in "everyone who changes has his hand on the lower half").

It seems to me that at the heart of this system is the assumption that women are not obligated to study, and therefore it is easy to prohibit them from doing so for one reason or another; but the picture presented in the previous chapters shows that this is a false assumption. As we have seen, women are obligated to study Torah in the academic sense, and therefore a directive of the essential type essentially instructs them not to fulfill their obligation. Such a directive has a place, of course, but only an assessment of reality actually requires it. It seems, therefore, that if one seeks to remove from women an obligation imposed on them, the burden of proof today falls precisely on those who prohibit, not on those who permit.

The meaning of this picture is that studying Torah is not a response to women's requests or needs, and it does not necessarily involve the adoption of values such as feminism (although there is nothing wrong with this in principle either). The demand to allow women to study Torah is a demand to allow them to fulfill a duty imposed on them; but it seems to me that those who deal with this issue generally do not see it this way. It is common to assume that this is a concession, a privilege of some kind, an adoption of modern spirits, a surrender to them, and the like. In my understanding, this is not the case, and therefore the entire discussion is lacking; what has been written above should therefore completely change the starting point for discussing the issue.

A few notes on the discussion

Many speak of the need to allow women to study Torah because of the contribution that female learning is supposed to make (and perhaps already does) to Torah and its study; some also speak of a female form of study that is missing in the male Beit Midrash and in halakhic rulings, and the like.[15] However, I am not at all sure that there is indeed a distinct form of female study; on the contrary, at most it is a not very important generalization (which is usually influenced by feminist literature). But all this discourse is irrelevant to the very question of women's study of Torah. The demand to allow women to study Torah, and to encourage them to do so, does not come to benefit anyone, to contribute to the Jewish people or to contribute to the Torah.

This demand is based on two fundamental aspects: a. The obligation of women to learn (as we saw above); b. Their right to learn. If there is no obstacle to women learning, then it is their right to learn, and no one has the authority to prevent them from doing so. Therefore, even if women do not innovate anything in learning and even if the Torah does not lack anything because women do not learn it – and the same is true even if there is no distinct form of female learning – women's obligation to learn and their right to learn remain intact.

Hence, even the stereotypical generalizations on this subject – such as the question of whether women are suitable for learning or whether their essence is to take care of children and the home – are not relevant to the discussion. Regardless of the discussion about the essence of women (if there is such a distinct essence at all) or the extent of their contribution, it is their right and duty to study Torah, just as encouraging men to study is not based precisely on the academic abilities or unique form of learning of a particular man, this or that, but simply on the fact that it is their right and their duty.

Furthermore, if someone thinks that a woman's desire to learn might interfere with the running of the household, he should respect and seat the husband with his wife and they should share their shared tasks as is customary in any other relationship. The woman is obligated to study Torah just as much as the man, and she has the right to learn just as much.

Study content

Because of traditional inertia, it is common to recommend that women not focus on scholarship but on the study of non-Talmudic and non-Halachic subjects (Tanakh, Hasidism, morality, and thought). Even when dealing with halachic subjects, they are advised to focus on laws that concern them more, such as the laws of Nida – and mainly on the practical rather than the academic level. However, from the picture, as sketched so far, it appears that for women, too, the study should focus on scholarship, just as it does for men (in yeshiva), and there should be no difference in this regard – at least not a difference dictated a priori – in the sense that “a person does not study Torah except from a place where his heart desires” (Avoda Zara 19a).

Current situation

The current situation is that very few women engage in scholarship, and certainly only a few continue such study over the years. There are many reasons for this: some are deeply ingrained in our society; but some stem from a misconception of Torah study for women (failure to recognize their obligation and right to study just like men, and in particular to study in scope and depth and not just the laws that concern them). Furthermore, women begin studying relatively late, and in most places they are not encouraged to do so. Women also have no career prospects in Torah fields; it is difficult to find reasonable funding that would allow them to sit down and study for a long time; and there is a lack of confidence in their ability to advance in Torah study. The vast majority of Torah journals (including Religious Zionist ones) do not allow women to publish articles,[16] Which does not give them motivation to move forward and create in this direction. And of course – the process is still in its early stages and from a few students it is clear that a significant number of high-level students cannot emerge. Therefore, it is not right to judge the process at this stage.

In any case, from a factual perspective, there are indeed very few women today who are at a high academic level, and we should not be surprised by this. In my aforementioned article in "Makor Rishon" I wrote that there are a few women who are at the level of study of a serious scholar, and I do not think there is anyone who is at a truly high level. Many have objected to this, but I stand by my opinion. The discourse on this matter is lacking and it is very important to stop sweeping the facts under the rug.

Discourse disorders

Those involved in this problematic state of affairs tend to hide it. A few years ago, I discovered to my astonishment that Torah journals – including those associated with religious Zionism – do not accept articles by women. This struck me as astonishing, and I approached several women involved in the field (among them midrash heads and those who teach in them), asking whether they were familiar with the situation and what could be done to change it. I thought it would be appropriate to publicize the matter, and also to establish a journal that would accept articles by women. The voices I received in response were very surprising: there was a tone of deep despair in them; almost all of them told me that there was no point in such a war because there was hardly anyone to write and there was really no supply of articles and writers relevant to high-level Torah articles. It became clear to me that women who speak enthusiastically to the outside about the revolution in female Torah study, reveal deep despair in their internal discourse.

I would like to point out that I am not claiming dishonesty on their part; it is indeed a revolution – even if there are still almost no women who can truly teach and write at a high level – and yet there is a tendency to hide this side of the coin so that the wind does not blow and the wheels of the revolution do not stop. However, to the best of my judgment, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and concealment – even if it is done with good intentions – hinders the advancement of the process in question. If the problematic situation of female scholarship is not exposed, there will be no awareness and there will be no one to address this situation.

On the other side of the coin: Others who expressed sympathy with my words saw this situation as proof of an essentialist view of women, as if by nature women were not suited to learning, and as a diagnosis of an irrational feminist insistence. In doing so, they joined the despair expressed on the other side of the fence.

Indeed, this is a wrong conclusion in at least three respects: a. It is impossible to make such a fundamental determination at such an early stage in the process, and especially when the obstacles are so strong and difficult (as mentioned); b. We saw above that even if the fundamental determination were correct, this would not rule out female study, since it is women's right and duty to study; c. Even if the fundamental characterization were both correct and relevant, we should not forget that women make up about half of the population, and it is impossible to dispute that within such a large number of women there are certainly some who are suitable for growth in Torah scholarship. There is no justification for preventing these women from advancing simply because of the general stereotype, and there is no justification for proceeding on the basis of group judgment and characterization.

Many of the scholars I spoke with are unaware of the importance of female advancement in scholarship. Whether we like it or not, the Torah tradition has developed an appreciation for the learned scholar based on his or her scholarly ability; and in light of what I described in the article, this attitude is also largely justified, since this is the essence of Talmud Torah. Things are becoming more acute in our time, when many can locate sources in various databases and on the Internet and write a Torah article at a reasonable level. Therefore, as long as there are no women who are found at an impressive scholarly level, we are doomed to continue hearing disparaging remarks about women.

I have often heard the claim that it is impossible to find an article by a woman that resolves a question in the Rambam, or proposes a new approach to a difficult Talmudic issue. Articles by women (of the few that exist) generally deal with a non-Talmudic-theoretical subject (Aggadah, Tanakh, Hasidism) or with halakhic reviews and simple rulings (relatively), and almost all of them focus on halakhic issues concerning women (mainly the laws of divorce).

In this context, it is important to internalize that scholarship – beyond being a central value in Talmud Torah (as mentioned) – also plays a central role in the politics of the process. Women will prove themselves and gain recognition from the rabbinical and Torah establishment only if they demonstrate a high level of scholarship. Halachic compilations or simple applications of halachic principles to jurisprudence – and this is the majority of the female material published today – will not do the job, and rightly so.

Another possible answer – which I have indeed heard from several women – is that women should not be measured by male parameters (and this is also part of the women's revolution: breaking away from male standards), but in my opinion this is too easy a solution and is actually an escape. Since, as we have seen here, these parameters are factually correct and are not "masculine whims" in the abstract, and since acquiring Torah status has an important meaning and depends on scholarship, I recommend that all of us not ignore everything said here. This does not mean, of course, that all female writings must deal with scholarship, just as not all men deal with it either; nor does it mean that all learned women should write in a Briske style or another; but that high-level scholarly writing of any kind is needed – whatever it may be. The current situation is that there are almost no scholarly writings by women; and in my understanding, if we really want to move forward, the next step of the revolution should be in the scholarly field.

Practical directions

If the next goal is progress in female scholarship – which is important from a tactical and substantive perspective – I think there are several steps that can be taken to assist this process. First, it is important to promote female scholarly writing, and of course allow women to publish articles in Torah journals. I must say that closing journals to articles by women contributes to intensifying the problem (and beyond that, I also see no justification for it). As a result, women who want to write and advance turn to academic directions, and then of course comes the criticism that women do not write in a yeshiva-traditional-scholarly style.

About three years ago, the journal "Dirsha" was established at the Bar-Ilan seminary, intended for articles by women. I must note that after my article was published in "Makor Rishon," some people claimed to me that there were no articles by women because they were not allowed to publish them. I replied to all these respondents that this is precisely why the journal "Dirsha" was established, and as a member of the editorial board I invite all of them to send articles. I must also say that despite the help we offer and despite requests from women from everywhere and on every site, we hardly receive scholarly articles, which is a shame. It turns out that women's scholarly writing fails to fill even a single stage. Doesn't that mean I am a preacher?!

Beyond that, it is important to encourage women to recite Torah, give Talmud lessons (especially in scholarship), and open up female teaching channels as an occupational horizon and a horizon for women to progress in the scholarly direction. It seems to me that if someone is looking for a target for contributing to the advancement of Torah study, it is important to consider channels of female scholarship more than any other direction of Torah study.

Summary

In this article, I distinguished between the formal Talmud Torah mitzvah, which includes morning and evening Shema recitation, and the explanatory Talmud Torah mitzvah, which focuses on scholarship. On the theoretical level, I argued that women are obligated to study Talmud Torah despite their exemption from the Talmud Torah mitzvah; and on the practical level, I drew several conclusions from this regarding the state of female Torah study, and in particular female scholarship, and regarding the ways needed to improve it.

[1]     Rabbi Michael Avraham, "Exclusion That Creates Mediocrity," Musaf Shabbat, First source (24.2.2017). I would like to point out that all of my articles to which I refer here, even those that were printed in various places, are available on my website, "Response and Articles" (mikyab.net. hereinafter: the "Site"). The source citation is taken from Bar-Ilan University's "Response Project".

[2]     For useful reviews of the primary sources on this matter, see: Rabbi Chaim Navon, "Talmud Torah for Women." Areas 28:248 (5768); Rabbi Yehuda Levi "Rambam's Opinion on Talmud Torah for Women" The kind 34(a) 10 (Tishrei 5754); Rabbi Yehoshua Pepper, "Talmud Torah for Women", the "Tavuna" website (tinyurl.com/y7zwwhnq), and many more. Opinions here and there can be found in abundance online.

[3]     In addition to what follows, see more detail on this in two places on the site: in video lessons – "Between Talmud Torah and the Mitzvot of Talmud Torah", and in the articles "The Halachic Status of Sabbats", accepted for publication in the journal Committee House (Hereinafter: my articles on explanations).

[4]     The expression appears in the Gemara in several places: Shabbat 22b, Hagiga 5b, Ta'anit 4b, and more. From the point of view of Hagiga, it seems that the intention is to cancel the observance of the mitzvot (the removal of the Torah from Israel) and not necessarily to cancel study. Even in places where this expression is interpreted as canceling study, it is not necessarily a moment when one does not study, but rather a phenomenon of a significant break in study.

[5]     On this distinction, see the articles "Mitzvah, Reason, and the Will of God" Noon L 15 (5767).

[6]     Some have made such a claim based on the fourth root of the Rambam in the Book of Commandments, which deals with the non-enumeration of commandments that include the entire Torah, but this is a (common) error. There, the Rambam deals with the commandments that instruct us to keep all the commandments of the Torah – such as “and keep my commandments and do them” (Leviticus 22:30) – and they are not counted because of duplication (because we are already commanded to do each commandment separately). Fundamental norms in the sense that I am talking about here are unique norms that are not duplicated.

[7]     With regard to this category, there seems to be a contradiction in Rashi's words (as to whether this is actual existence or learning for the sake of existence), but this is how the whole seems to be interpreted from his words and from the language of the verse.

[8]     Writings of Rabbi Israel Salanter (Mordechai Pechter, editor, 1973), p. 160.

[9]     Although, of course, it is also possible to conduct Torah study in it. According to our way, the requirement to "study in order to practice" does not deal with the purpose of the study, but with its form or implications. In terms of its form, the study should end with practical conclusions ("Lasuki s'hamata eli'ba de'halkata"); and in terms of its implications, the study should also be applied (excluding those who study and do not apply).

[10]    See my article (written with Gabriel Hazut) "Blessing of the Torah" Good measure Parashat HaAzinu (5767) (hereinafter: my article on the blessing of the Torah).

[11]    I suggested there that the blessing "Ahavah Rabah", which also has the same law as the Torah blessing, is a blessing of the commandments and is therefore placed before ("Ober Le'Ashi'ain") the recitation of Shema - the formal part of the commandment of Talmud Torah.

[12]    It is not clear from this why Maimonides concludes that even with regard to the written Torah, it is better not to teach it. As is well known, the""Tur" (Yora Deah, Siman Remo) wrote the opposite, and many have already wondered about it.

[13]    In several places in the Gemara we find that Amoraim disagree on conditions in the "meaning of demanding." For example, on the issue of Pikuach Nefesh (Yoma here 1-2), Shmuel disagrees on all conditions regarding the source of the law that Pikuach Nefesh postpones the Sabbath. This is also stated in a relaxed manner, and the Gemara even concludes exactly as it did.

[14]    See, for example: Baraki Yosef, Yoreh Deah, Siman Ramo; Even Hazel, Kings, Chapter 3, Halacha 5; Or Samach, Talmud Torah, Chapter 1, Halacha 2; Minchat Asher, Exodus 24, 2, and more.

[15]    It is worth seeing in this context Este Barel's article "On Patriarchy and Female Voices" entree 39 (5768). She rebels against these statements precisely from a feminist perspective.

[16]    Editor's NoteThe editorial board of the journal "Tzohar" publishes articles by women, and has even initiated direct contacts with quite a few women, but there are still few articles written by women that are sent to the editorial board.