לקריאת המאמר בעברית במגזין גלויה | Originally published in Hebrew in Gluya
It appears that the opportunity that exists today for women, men and couples to turn to a female figure regarding questions of niddah law has become accepted and common in the religious world. With the passing of time and the development of designated study frameworks, women are becoming addressees of halakhic questions in many halakhic fields. One must remember that, throughout history, women asked very few questions themselves. It was much more common to have one’s husband ask a question of the rabbi or posek, or to consult with other women, usually older and more experienced family members.
Throughout the twentieth century, it became more common, in many communities, for women to turn to rabbis themselves for answers in the field of niddah or on other matters. The direct appeal to the rabbi, without going through the husband, testifies to women’s autonomy over themselves and their lives, and to the rise in women’s engagement in communal life. But the rabbi – like all men who do not, themselves, practice all the specific laws of niddah themselves – determines the halakha out of purely theoretical knowledge, even if he lives the halakha out in his own marriage, alongside his wife.
She Opens her Mouth with Wisdom
A woman of halakhic authority, who receives questions on halakhic matters, fulfills two “roles” that were, in the past, separate from one another: she serves as both a halakhic authority (i.e. as one who possesses knowledge and expertise in the halakhic material) and is, herself, a woman. The combination of these roles in one figure brings to our world a new reality that did not exist in the distant past. The practical answer the female responder supplies is, in theory, judged on the basis of theoretical knowledge acquired through extensive learning, but we must note that the female responder herself responds also from a perspective that is based on personal experience. The adage “there is none as wise as one with experience” is, perhaps, relevant here as well, for knowledge that is based in theory alone cannot be compared with knowledge that combine theory and experience. Just as we would prefer the advice of an experienced person in any realm in our life in which we require help, advice or guidance, we may also make this choice when turning for help with a halakhic question. It is not only women, but also couples in general, and even men, who are turning more and more to female poskot, out of an awareness of the advantage they have when it comes to practical experience in certain fields. One can surmise that there is a different nature to a response that comes from a woman of halakhic learning and to Torah learned from her. This Torah is, as Job says, Torah of “with my flesh I view God”, knowledge which combines learning with deep acquaintance and experience. But a female halakhic responder does not become an address only for matters relating to the female body, she has much more to offer.
One can see that the way in which women respond to halakhic questions, at this point in history, oftentimes comprises a detailed dialogue with the questioner and an attempt to give her tools that will, in future, prevent her being dependent on a halakhic authority, when a similar question arises in the future. Furthermore, many times the dialogue with the female halakhic responder will lead, through the clear advice of the responder or in a manner perceived as “natural,” to dialogue with the man, in order to have the couple carry the halakhic commitment in a clearer manner, which honors both partners, and in order to enable shared processes of development on the basis of this dialogue.
As opposed to a request for objective knowledge, a halakhic response does not contain only the acquaintance with mountains of Torah knowledge, but also judgement with relation to every question. It would be difficult to claim that the fact that the female halakhic respondent deals with the same issue in her private life could get in the way of her giving a proper response. For, throughout history, any halakhic question was made under the assumption that the rabbi applies the halakha in question in his personal life as well. Everyone also knew that the rabbi could not, at the same time, fulfill the roles of an “Israelite” and of a “Cohen,” and also of one in mourning, etc. – however, the basic assumption was that these were his way of life and that the knowledge he possessed was put into practical use in his life as well. Therefore, the possible mention of the fact that a female halakhic responder engages with these halakhot herself (in the present, the past, or perhaps the future) is natural to the situation of relationships between a halakhic authority and their audience. Furthermore, the assumption is that a woman’s learning ability and their halakhic response is not limited only to mitzvoth that are particularly female “territory”, but to the generality of a life of Torah and mitzvoth.
It is completely possible to continue to rely on a male halakhic authority also as relates to niddah questions, and it is equally possible to choose a female halakhic responder, both out of a principled choice of her as a halakhic figure and out of an assumption that her response will reflect something in the space between theory and practice. One can also choose a woman as a halakhic authority in many matters in which she does not possess the advantage of practical life that is different than that of male halakhic authorities, and even on issues in which she has no practical experience of the question she is being asked.
Perhaps because the field in which the female halakhic figure grows is not subject to ancient behavioral patterns, it is possible to expect a growth that does not correspond to the ways in which the things were done in the old halakhic pathways. It will be interesting to inspect this again in a few more years, when, God willing, the place of female halakhic figures will be completely natural in our religious lives, and to examine whether patterns from the present are dependent on historical patterns, or whether there will be separate patterns that will depend on other factors.
In first person
As a female halakhic figure, who has been responding, for the last few years, to questions in niddah law, I am very occupied with the question of the meaning of women’s entry into this realm. It is interesting to think about the place of women’s bodies in the laws of niddah. One would think this would be so obvious – the female body is the focus of niddah law, which deals extensively with the female body and what occurs in it and through it! But the traditional gaze was always reserved for the eyes of our rabbis, the poskim of previous generations, who were all men. The female body was a subject of observation, and there were no women who were involved in pesika in a direct, simple manner.
Nowadays, when women are also present “on the other side,” as subjects and not only as object, the body suddenly receives a voice. There is suddenly room for knowledge that is not accumulated in books, what was not written and could not have been written, as it is not verbal knowledge but rather knowledge that has been collected and assimilated in the body through the practical experiences of those who, themselves, observe the laws of niddah.
I am not, heaven forbid, implying any denigration of the poskim throughout the ages, whose Torah I imbibe and in whose light I behave myself and teach others. But there are nuances that arise from the practical immersion experience of women, which were not apparent to poskim who dealt with this halakhic realm based solely on halakhic theory, even when they gave practical halakhic guidance.
Do women who provide halakhic responses on the laws of niddah bring forth different responses than those that appear in the discussions and responses of male halakhic responders? Is there an additional, new or perhaps alternative discourse that has developed? Is it only in this field that they present a new perspective? Different people will respond differently to this question. Those who respond negatively will express a position according to which halakha is an unchanging, independent body of work. A different stance will express a position that gender should not affect function and that there is a danger in identifying a ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ voice.
A third approach will answer this question positively and may attribute this fact to cognitive inferiority or superiority, and is thereby under the sway of an essentialism which does not necessarily have any scientific basis. An additional stance that will answer this question positively might also attribute separateness to the sexes, and will therefore, for example, express excitement over the ‘feminine’ growth within the world of Torah and hope for ‘feminine Torah’, but this has the potential to quickly or slowly build a separate pathway to Torah, which will be disconnected from its base.
Out of the practical world and out of my place in a collegial space with other male and female rabbis, I get the impression that this field expresses the reality that we are of many faces and opinions. It appears that the question of influence over the halakhic bottom line should include the human variable and the way dialogue is undertaken with the questioner, alongside the commitment to rely on the foundations of pesika and use them to arrive at a conclusion that will be applicable in the lives of the questioners. We must remember that women now answer halakhic questions not only on niddah laws, and that therefore, they will not necessarily bring to bear more practical knowledge on every matter. Perhaps we must distinguish between the details given to a female halakhic responder in the field of niddah and the ways in which the questions will be presented in other areas, but the important factor is the ability to ask a question that expresses the world of the questioner, whether female or male.
Don’t rush to conclusions
Despite the perhaps obvious assumptions, we live in a society with solidarity between men and women, and there is no barrier that places us as two separate groups in conflict with each other. There are therefore not necessarily “better results” or “a more inclusive pesika” given by women. There are feminine societies and feminine voices that are full of sensitivity to the questioner and her experience in the world, but not every feminine society is necessarily supportive. Voices that I am familiar with, from near and far, echo in my head: the female boss who is scornful of a female worker who has a difficult pregnancy and says “I went through this as well, pregnancy is not a disease,” a friend who has difficulty providing support during a crisis because “I don’t understand what the drama is about, I managed fine under the same circumstances,” etc.
The essentialist statement that “women are more stringent/lenient/sympathetic/sensitive/insensitive than men” is necessarily wrong. Just as different poskim have different levels of hearing and sensitivity to a female questioner, so too different poskot are different from each other, and the criteria of gender is insufficient for us to assume what the responder’s stance will be.
Halakhic works testify clearly to women who were stringent with themselves and their surroundings, not because of some claim to a feminine essence of stringency, but due to a lack of organized knowledge:
“One should warn the women not to rely on the instructions of the old ladies, who see things from the musings of their hearts’ (…) and those who, due to shame, turn to their mothers-in-law or other strange old women בלבנה???????????? On women’s matters often end up making mistakes in halakha” (Rav Ovadia Yosef, Yabi’a Omer 4, Yoreh Deah 13).
Even today we would have a hard time identifying clear differences between halakhic determinations given by men and those given by women. The importance of purity and the closeness between a couple is a shared value for men and women; sometimes, in fact, it is specifically the distance of the posek and his external gaze that allow him to be lenient, whereas the personal experience of a female responder might lead to a stringent and inflexible stance. We should therefore take care and abstain from making assumptions about the differences between men and women. There are always different possibilities for influence over the considerations of halakhic responders.
The documentary “She Asani Isha” by Yakov Friedland deals with Orthodox feminism. The movie came out in 2000 and it is interesting to examine old events in it that are relevant to present processes.
In a different voice
And yet, one can’t excuse oneself without saying anything. We cannot deny the place of the body, which separates the – male – rabbi and the – female – woman. Many women testify to the difficulty in approaching a rabbi with sensitive questions and on intimate topics that require privacy and modesty. As more than one woman has told me, “When I’m in front of the rabbi, my purpose is to run away as quickly as possible.”
Neutralizing the gender gap is an almost technical step, but its effect is quite dramatic. A woman who turns with a question to a female Torah scholar, when the level of embarrassment goes down and she is slightly more comfortable, asks her question differently. This has critical influence over the halakhic bottom line. The more detailed a question, the more precise and appropriate the answer can be.
One can say that the value of responses by women is even more meaningful and deep: an answer given by someone who can empathize with the question, who has experienced and experiences the same thing every month, is absorbed differently by the questioner. “Together we enjoyed great fellowship; we walked together in God’s house”: the ability to be in fellowship, to share from a personal and intimate place, is tied to the element of “togetherness,” i.e. the sense of a shared experience and the closeness it brings. Mutual understanding, which is not necessarily verbalized, reflects a different quality, feminine knowledge that cannot be bought any way but through experience.
The unique knowledge that is bought through the female experience, in addition to lessons and book-learning, suggests a different voice, a different listening and a different response. In my years as a teacher of halakha I have learned that the contribution of my voice and that of my female colleagues is not limited to women only. Couples and even men sense the different quality of the knowledge that combines learning and action, and seek to use it in their lives.
My prayer regarding my role in the community is a deep supplication that I cause no misstep. That I know how to see those who stand before me with a good eye. That I produce an answer that is directed at the truth of Torah and at the truth of the lives of those who turn to me. That I not be lenient where I shouldn’t, and that, God forbid, I am not stringent where I shouldn’t be and thus cause harm. That I have the sensitivity to identify the situation about which I am asked cleanly, in all its facets, without making a mistake, causing a mistake or, God forbid, causing harm. An additional prayer, no less deep and profound, is that our way will continue to thrive and grow. In the past few years, the call of “let me hear your (feminine) voice” has broadened, and my colleagues and I have become the addressees not only of questions on niddah law, but also in other aspects of halakha. May we find favor and good thought in the eyes of God and man. May the public we serve widen in the seeking of Torah, and may we be worthy of it, of making the Torah greater.
Translated by Sara Tova Brody
