Q&A: Who Has Not Made Me a Woman, Women’s Disqualification from Testimony and Judging
Who Has Not Made Me a Woman, Women’s Disqualification from Testimony and Judging
Question
- It’s commonly said that the blessing “who has not made me a woman” is because of the number of commandments, and that it doesn’t indicate inferiority. But why is a woman obligated in fewer commandments? Doesn’t that show inferiority?
- Why does Jewish law often compare a woman to a slave? (Laws that are identical for women and slaves.) Did the Sages see a woman as a kind of slave?
- From a simple reading of the verses in Genesis, it seems that the main creation is the man: he was created first, and then God saw that he wouldn’t be able to manage alone, so He created for him an aid—the woman. Do you agree with that? If not, how do you explain the verses in Genesis: “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make for him a helper corresponding to him”—which is the woman.
- Why did the Sages disqualify women from testimony and from judging? I’ve received many explanations, and none of them seem true to me.
- Does “local custom” have binding force in the laws of modesty? If all the women around me wear stockings, am I obligated in that too? Thank you in advance.
Answer
1. I have no idea. Different roles and a different personality structure. There is no necessity whatsoever that this points to inferiority. A priest is also obligated in more commandments than an ordinary Jew.
2. There is a verbal analogy, and it deals only with a few formal laws. Not with rights, and not with the woman being her husband’s property like a slave. a0
As for obligation in commandments, the slave is learned from the woman, not she from him. Besides, see section 1.
3. That does indeed seem to be the plain meaning. But it is possible that these things also change over the generations. I don’t know.
4. I do not know a clear explanation. But I have written several times that there is room to consider validating women’s testimony on the basis of the change in their roles, their education, and their place in modern society.
5. In principle, yes. But with all due respect to customs, there is no need to sacrifice yourself over something like this if it bothers you a lot.
Discussion on Answer
It’s possible that the goal was for the man to lead until the world became more prepared, and then women too would enter the circle. Quite a few things change over the course of history, even in the Holy One’s policy (like the cessation of miracles and His involvement in the world). Beyond that, it’s hard to learn anything clear from Scripture. So I don’t attach much importance to such inferences. It also says “an eye for an eye,” yet in Jewish law the ruling is that he pays money.
So one can live normally according to our own reasoning. At most, we remain with an unresolved difficulty regarding Scripture.
I don’t care whether it changed or not. At some point in the past, God created a being whose purpose was to serve the human being. God created her only because it wasn’t good for the human to be alone. The phrase “an eye for an eye” no commentator really agreed to accept literally, but here, unfortunately, most commentators are with me; it didn’t bother them. Think about someone who had an especially talented daughter, but she was terribly forgetful, so he would decide to bring another child into the world so that this child would remind the first daughter of everything she forgets, and he would raise that child to long to remind people of things. Do you think that’s moral? And if not—then to create a being usually weaker and less intelligent than the man, give her a more submissive nature, so that she will help the man—is that moral?!
I really don’t see the principled problem. I understand that today you aren’t willing to accept it, and that’s why I spoke about change. But what is the principled problem with it if everyone accepts those rules? Ask Haredi women and they will tell you the same even today, with full identification. The same issue can be raised regarding animals (and no, I’m not making a comparison). They were created at a level and with a consciousness that accepts the fact that they serve human beings, and there is no problem with that. Just as all of us serve the Holy One, there is no obstacle to there being an internal division of roles among us. In the Air Force, when the technicians are meant to serve the planes and the pilots, is that an injury to their status and dignity? Everyone together serves a greater purpose, and that is the internal division among them. Whoever doesn’t want to be a technician shouldn’t be one. And so too regarding a woman: if she doesn’t want that, then no. Today many women don’t want that secondary role, and that’s perfectly fine.
By the way, when one brings another child in such a way, that doesn’t mean this is his entire role and status, only that this is the motivation for bringing him. From the moment he is brought into the world, he is a person in every respect.
I understand, thanks. Regarding #3: if we’re talking about God’s intention in creation, it’s hard to see how that could change, no? That’s what God intended when He created man and woman: that one should be fruitful and multiply and subdue, etc., and the other should help him. Did He suddenly regret it and decide that it’s better for them to live in mutual equality?
One more thing—it sounds really unfair to me to create a person for the sake of another person’s success. But that seems to have been God’s intention?! How can one live with such a view?