"WHO HAS NOT MADE ME A WOMAN"
A Summary of Student Responses

Dear Mrs. Kohn:
There is an answer that I have heard to the question at hand that I have not seen in your responses...:
1) (Re. the woman's blessing) "according to his will"- man cannot give this answer because women are closer to Shleimut (perfection) than man, man needs the commandments to become closer to Hashem while woman does not need as many of these tasks to become closer to Hashem.
2) This leads to a question. What are men being thankful for? If women are closer to God men should not be thankful to not be women.
3) The answer I have been supplied also answers the question of why the blessing is in the negative. The best way to understand the answer is through parable. A person desperately wants to get into college. Unfortunately he does not have the proper credentials to get in. Distraught and disturbed that he could not get in he seeks a job. An employer takes a chance and employs him. After much hard work and many years this person is now on the salary and experience level of someone who has graduated college. Which would be a greater expression of gratitude to the employer?
1. Thank you for the job. I appreciate all the work you allowed me to do for you, or 2.Thank you for the job. You made it worth it for me not to have gone to college. The comparison is simple. The goal is closeness to God. He is our "employer" men must work harder to reach that closeness, whereas women do not need to work harder. (Note: This is not a statement stating anything hierarchical, as men and women are judged based on their advantages or disadvantages as well by the ultimate Judge). The way women thank Hashem is- Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be as Your will- "closer to Hashem" and men say, "it was worth it for me to be unlike women, because I have the (extra) mitzvot." To merely say thank you for making me a man would have missed the point.

Mrs. Kohn:
So, basically, your entire argument boils down to the fact that the men who came up with the Bracha (blessing) are of such high caliber that they can't possibly be wrong, and because they can't possibly be wrong, the Bracha is not based on any prejudice. This is not an argument; this is circular reasoning. The fact that the Talmud makes many negative references to women also suggests that the Rabbeim were not always of the highest caliber. Your further reference to "rabbis who fall short of the Torah standards for their role" is nothing but code language for those who disagree with you. The essence of the Talmud is Machloket (dispute); it is childish to belittle argumentative adversaries by questioning their credentials. Michael

Dear Michael:
Thank you for your email response to our class on the question of rabbinical integrity, and its bearing upon the writing of "shelo asani isha" ("who has not made me a woman"). There are several points in your email which are based on an incorrect understanding of the relationship of our sages to the Torah and to the masoret (tradition) that Moses gave to Joshua and passed on to the Jewish people through the rabbis of all generations. This tradition comprises the essence of Torah Judaism and has sustained our people through 3300 years of existence, as well as against the concerted effort of non-Jews to convert us or erase us from the world.

The concept of rabbinical authority is too complex to cover within the framework of this course on Women in Judaism. Still, for the sake of understanding, "who has not made me a woman," it was essential we cover several key points on the subject, which are set forth in our class, "Who Has Not Made Me a Woman: An Examination of Rabbinical Integrity As Related to the Blessing" (10/5/00). A summary of these points follows:

1) Rabbinical Wisdom, Integrity & Objectivity: What uniquely qualifies our sages to interpret the Written Torah and the oral tradition transmitted by Moses is (1) their lifetime of intensive study of this tradition, (2) their acceptance of Torah as the word of G-d, (3) their tutelage at the feet of the Rabbis whose teachers are traced directly back to Moses and Joshua, and (4) their humility stemming from their understanding of the Divine basis upon which their arguments rest. Most significant is that the Torah itself gives our sages the authority to interpret, clarify and rule on matters relating to its text. Deuteronomy (17: 9-12) states explicitly that the great sages of each generation have been vested with this responsibility. "You shall come to the Kohanim, the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days; you shall inquire and they will tell you the word of judgement. You shall do according to the word that they will tell you, from the place that Hashem will choose, and you shall be careful to do according to everything that they will teach you. According to the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgement that they will say to you, shall you do; you shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left." Commenting on this passage, the Ramban states that the decisions of the Sanhedrin - the high court of the sages - are binding even upon outstanding scholars, and that a Jew must commit to the fact that G-d Himself guides the rulings of His "devout servants." Moreover, in its statement, "the judge who will be in those days," the Torah extends this authority beyond the era of the Great Sages, to encompass all future generations. Commenting on this verse, Rashi tells us, "Even if he is not like the other judges before him; you must listen to him; you have only the judge of your own time." And as if anticipating our question about why we should listen to a judge who is seemingly inferior to his predecessors, R' Chaim Shmulevitz adds that, "G-d does not cast his people into anarchy; He provides them with the leaders who are suited to the needs of the time and place."

2) Methods of Interpreting Torah Text: As human channels for Divine Will, the great sages as well as today's rabbinical leaders are not at liberty to make decisions based on personal opinion. Rather, in formulating rulings, they are obligated to use their complete knowledge of Torah as well as their understanding of the methods of interpretation that are set forth by the Torah itself. One of many sources that mandates how the Torah should be interpreted is a set of thirteen methods of interpreting its text. These methods are so important that they are recited each day in the morning prayer. (For text and commentary on the Thirteen Rules by which the Torah is expounded, see The Complete Artscroll Siddur, pages 53 - 54). To repeat: Rabbinical rulings are not based upon any one rabbi's personal opinion, but upon careful exploration of the Torah text and the underlying tradition of law. This work takes place within the limits of interpretation given by G-d in His Thirteen Rules, among other sources.

3)"Machloket" - Disputes Over Torah Text: Michael, you state that, "the essence of the Talmud is Machloket." It is clear from the above sources that, while any individual may engage in "machloket," by wrestling with or disputing Torah text, only the great rabbinical leaders are eligible to make binding decisions for all generations. As in any other field or profession, critical decisions are made only by those who possess requisite knowledge, experience and objectivity. When a doctor makes a life or death decision, for instance, he uses his own logic, supported by his knowledge and experience in the field. Often, two doctors come up with separate opinions regarding the treatment of the same patient. In this case, the patient chooses which opinion to follow, while he/she generally acknowledges the value of the second opinion. In much the same way, the Talmud tells us to follow one majority opinion, but still maintains minority opinions, in acknowledgement of their validity. Time and again the Talmud states, "these and these are the words of the living G-d."

There is a major difference between the "doctor" and Talmud examples, however, when one considers the guidelines for decision-making in each scenario- medical or Talmudic. In contrast to the patient who makes a decision based on his or her opinion and assessment of the particular circumstances, the Torah itself gives us a method for deciding which Talmudic opinion to follow, and this method is the same from case to case, regardless of the particulars of the case. This ability to make decisions according to the framework of Torah law and methodology is the specialty of the Rabbis. To restate: The arguments in the Talmud are not the creations of literati or lay people seeking to invent new understandings stemming from their respective intellectual, philosophical or epistemological inspirations. Our sages based everything they purported, on the teachings they had received from their respective Rabbis. Further, everything they argued was under-girded and validated by their connection to this tradition.

Certainly, the Torah encourages questions from all who examine its text, and the Talmud is full of rabbinical disputes that arise from intense questioning. Many incorrectly assume, however, that individual opinion, whether or not it accords with the "masoret," is as valuable and binding as that of the Rabbis who accept and adhere to this tradition. Those who formulated the Talmud, as well as those of future generations whose rulings accord with Talmudic principles, did and do not derive individually inspired innovations, new laws, or philosophical streams of thought. Rather, they base their arguments on Rabbinical teachings absorbed during lifetimes of total immersion in the study of the written and oral law--with the sole intention of clarifying and illuminating the connection between the oral tradition and the written law of G-d. While in practice we follow the majority opinion in a Torah-sanctioned Rabbinic argument (as Torah itself commands us), we embrace all other opinions as valuable elucidation of the issue in question. As stated, the above three points do not articulate the full scope of Rabbinical Authority or the relationship between Oral and Written Law. We chose to elaborate on these three areas only in order to refute those who discredit the Rabbis who wrote, "who has not made me a woman." For a more comprehensive look at the issue of Rabbinical Authority, outside of its application to "who has not made me a woman," we recommend The Written and Oral Torah: A Comprehensive Introduction, by Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo. This title is available at Jewish bookstores (you might try West Side Judaica (212) 362-7846 or fax (212) 787-4202). The book is also available through Amazon.com. Upon completing the book, should you have further questions, please feel free to contact me at Lkohn@Torah.org.

All the best,
Leah Kohn

Thank you for sending this lesson. When I came to Jerusalem fifteen years ago, to study in yeshiva and become 'religious', clarifying this blessing was certainly one of my burning issues. Personally, the more one is content with who one is and how Hashem made you, the more wonderful the blessing...."for making me according to Your Will" becomes. (As regards men and their specific obligations) do you think it is easy to be obligated every minute to study Torah, and have to give a good reason (in Olam Haba/the afterlife) why they wasted so much time, or why they didn't get up for minyan every morning? Being (exempt from these obligations, as a woman) is a big chesed (kindness).

With regard to "Thank G-d who has not made me a woman"...In my home I can see that man and woman each have their own design, purpose, duties, etc... I also see that for women, gentleness, kindness, compassion, mercy, faithfulness, etc... are all qualities that we possess naturally. I believe that part of the reason Hashem has so many mitzvah (obligations) for men is to bring some of these qualities that He values so deeply into their lives. In other words, they need it. I don't mean this in a negative sense at all. There are areas of life that only a man can fulfill and the same is true for women. We are co-heirs in the kingdom. Just because one requires a different sort of discipline does not make one greater. Hashem has graciously provided the structure and discipline our men need; He provides the same for us in a different way...

I don't particularly care for the way the prayer is worded. However, having a greater confidence in Hashem, who He is and knowing Him, when all of Torah is taken in context and when I have the sure confidence that I was placed here for a purpose and created with intention and design to be exactly who I am (whether other people care to think so or not) it's easy to put it on the back burner. I don't have to like everything and have everything go my way. It also does not hinder me from moving forward... Debra

Dear Mrs. Kohn:
If the rabbis did not intend to discriminate, as I believe they did not, then it is hard to avoid concluding that they seriously underestimated the risk that the prayer would be misinterpreted as a justification for misogyny. Judith

Dear Judith:
Thank you for your response to our class on the subject of rabbinical authority, as it pertains to "who has not made me a woman." I can understand how the modern woman might easily conclude that the Rabbis did not anticipate future misinterpretations of the blessing. On the contrary, however, they took this possibility into account, and chose anyway to maintain the negative phrasing. The reasons they did so are set forth in our class dated 9/12/00, and are elaborated below.

We find many instances in which Torah text can be easily misunderstood, however, the way to properly examine these ambiguities is through objectivity and knowledge of the Torah in its entirety. As concerns, "who has not made me a woman," it is important that the blessing be examined in context, according to these precepts. The Torah relies on our overall knowledge of its tenets to keep us from drawing incorrect conclusions, based on the phrasing of its text. Often, there is a deeper message embedded in the text that is most effectively conveyed by the more difficult phrasing. "Who has not made me a woman" follows this tradition. Like any other field or discipline (medicine, law, art history, etc.), Torah needs to be learned in its entirety in order to be properly understood. For this reason, it is unproductive to extract and analyze any single word or phrase, independent of the rest of the text.

Here is an example of how a Torah phrase can be misconstrued, if examined in isolation, apart from its text and commentary. In Genesis (1:26), G-d states, "Let us make Man..." Here, the word "us" has been misinterpreted as referring to more than one creator or god. The following sources both foresee and refute this misinterpretation. In addition, they clearly state that embedded in the use of "us" is a deeper message about human relationships which would not be properly conveyed, had "us" been omitted: 1) The Midrash states: "When Moses wrote the Torah and came to this verse (let us make), which is in the plural and implies, G-d forbid, that there is more than one Creator, he said: "Sovereign of the Universe! Why do You thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divinities?" "Write!" G-d replied. "Whoever wishes to err will err...Instead let them learn from their Creator Who created all, yet when He came to create Man He took counsel with the ministering angels." 2) Rashi, on "Let us make Man" comments: "...Scripture does not shrink from teaching us the way of the world [proper conduct] and the trait of modesty that the mighty should consult with and ask permission from the lowly. But if Scripture had written: "I shall make man," we would not learn that He was speaking with His [Heavenly] court but to Himself. And the rebuttal to the heretics is written next to it [the following verse] 'and He created man' and it [Scripture] did not write "and they created."

By examining "us" in "Let us make Man" within its proper context, we learn the valuable lesson that it is proper to involve - and thereby empower - subordinates when working on a project at home, if this project will have a positive effect upon them.

In terms of "who has not made me a woman," the Men of the Great Assembly anticipated it might be misinterpreted as derogatory. Nonetheless, the Rabbis felt this would be countered by the fact that the Torah clearly holds the Jewish woman in high esteem. At the time the blessing was formulated, there was a dissenting opinion, arguing that it should be written in the positive. Although this minority opinion was not adopted in practice, it remains for all time, as evidence that it is part of the decision making process that culminated in the blessing as we know it. In the end, the Rabbis chose the negative phrasing - "who has not made me a woman" - because it best conveys our appreciation of mitzvot and a feeling that there is a perpetual need to grow spiritually. (See: "Who Has Not Made Me a Woman: An introductory essay on one of the most misunderstood topics in Judaism" (9/12/00). Best regards,
Leah Kohn

Mrs Kohn:
So what if the men were of a high caliber- still they were men, and women were not (and in many cases still are not) able to study the oral law. By keeping women in the dark, they could basically take everything from a MALE perspective. Ask a woman and a man the same question and see how different the response will be. I am an observant woman, but I still take issue with all the petty excuses that you use in an attempt to explain this stuff away. The fact is that in those days, women had no rights. They had no education and were not encouraged to do anything with their minds. Now that everyone knows that women's minds are as intelligent (if not more, most of the time) we've had to come up with all these petty arguments to keep women from delving into the secrets of Torah. Sorry, I just don't buy it. Most intelligent women of this century won't either. They just ignore it, because living observant is for the most part good. Dvora

Dear Dvora: Thank you for your contribution to our class on rabbinical authority, as it relates to "shelo asani isha". I am anxious to know whether you can substantiate that Jewish women should be included in your statement that, "in those days, women had no rights. They had no education and were not encouraged to do anything with their minds." Jewish women have traditionally been responsible for the transmission of Jewish values to the next generation. This requires education and brains - precisely the two qualities that you feel were not assigned to women in days gone by. In terms of your perception that women were and are still not for the most part allowed to learn the oral law - on the contrary, not only are they "allowed," but in fact they are obligated to learn the parts of the oral law and Jewish philosophy that are pertinent to their role. In the past, a Jewish man's education was more formal, whereas a woman learned by osmosis, from her mother and from the other women in the community. Today, the requisite subjects are taught in all girls' schools. The reason you will find the observant community does not emphasize that women learn the oral law in the same framework as men, is related to the underlying principle that men and women achieve a closeness to G-d through a specific modality of learning that differs according to gender. (Why this is so, is a topic on its own).

Moving on - I respectfully take issue with your assertion that we use "petty" arguments and excuses that "attempt to explain this stuff away". This may well be your opinion, however, I would argue that the Sages who wrote "shelo asani" were anything but petty, given their credentials. (For a summary of these credentials, insofar as they relate to the blessing, please refer to "Michael," above).

Your argument that the Rabbis worked from a decidedly "male perspective" is extrapolated from your observation that men and women see many (most) things differently. I agree that men and women differ on the level of perception and that their responses to many questions would be split along gender lines. The concept of Rabbinical authority, however, has nothing to do with differences in male/female perception. Rather, it is based on "masoret" as outlined in my response to Michael. Indeed, the rabbis are charged with the ongoing task of sustaining us as a cohesive people, by not submitting to personal perspective and opinion. If the rabbis were to preside from a male or otherwise personal point of view, the Jewish Nation would have ceased to exist long ago.

I hope I have been helpful,
Leah Kohn

Women in Judaism, Copyright (c) 2000 by Mrs. Leah Kohn and ProjectGenesis, Inc.