The problem of materialism is a true concern, but the solution is not Torah study for women. Not only will in-depth study fail to resolve the issue, but it even carries the risk of blurring the boundaries between men and women. Rather, the solution lies in adopting the "same old Torah," the one close to each woman’s heart, and teaching it in a mature and relevant way.

Tevet 5781, December 2020

And so it was her way to always sit by the oven in the winter […] and before her was a table piled with different books: Tanach, Mishnayot, Ein Yaakov, various midrashim. […] And all her studies and attention, her entire heart – within the books, and her hand hardly moved from them, and she knew very little of running the household. (Makor Baruch, Chap 46, “The Wisdom of Women,” p. 1949).

This is how Rabbi Baruch Epstein begins his long description of his knowledge-thirsty aunt, whose soul desired the study of Torah no less than the leading scholars in the beis midrash. Many women find themselves today in a similar place, including – so it seems – the author of this month’s lead article. These women make arguments for Torah study for women, with implicit and explicit criticism of their role in society. They demand and desire to be part of the beis midrash world, which has been closed to them for thousands of years.

I will not aim to represent them in this article. Then as now, they are a select few, a handful of women within Torah society. It may be possible to allow them to study as they wish, privately. But as the Moreh Nevuchim says (3:34), public leadership follows the majority. This article aims to give voice to the great majority of women in Charedi society – those who do not feel humiliated in being excluded from the joy of Torah study and who find spiritual satisfaction in their present place in the Torah world.

 

A Clear Division

Allow me to open with the obvious: The average Charedi woman, a graduate of some Bais Yaakov institution or other in which she was tested on the contents of Michtav Me-Eliyahu and Alei Shur, knows that there is an essential difference between her and her husband. Whether he be a Kollel student or hi-tech worker, whether she be a housekeeper or accountant, her assumptions concerning family structure are crystal clear: the husband is head of the household, while she is the home.

Such women understand that differences between men and women are fundamental and ingrained and that the ravages of time have not materially changed this basic fact. They will see housekeeping mostly as a welcome mission and look askance at men whose chief interests are domestic duties

Such women understand that differences between men and women are fundamental and ingrained and that the ravages of time have not materially changed this basic fact. They will see housekeeping mostly as a welcome mission and look askance at men whose chief interests are domestic duties. We could expand further on this description: We women have clear roles and boundaries, and we are satisfied with what they are. They fill most of us with great contentment and satisfaction.

I do not think my friend Rikva Lerner, the author of the lead article, and others who agree with her position, question the credibility of this worldview. But they point to a real problem: materialism. Women who are exposed to or somehow integrated in secular society are being uprooted from the warm hearth of the home. Lacking an independent spiritual supply, they become emotionally distant from the world of Torah.

If the well of the spirit is empty of water, it is naturally filled with snakes and scorpions of materialism. This even leads some to leave the source of living water – the Divine Torah – which, according to the author, they never really got to know. If we but fill these women with deep learning and connect them to some “Sorority of Torah;” if we but establish a motherly “Dirshu” (a worldwide organization of Torah study for men) – their world will be filled with Torah and fear of God, and all will be well again.

 

Peeking Beyond the Mechitzah

The secular and materialistic influence that hits when women go to work is indeed a severe problem that requires serious thought, but not necessarily serious Torah study. Turn your eyes to yeshiva graduates who have started working, and you will observe the same problem. When they enter the rat race of our capitalist workplace, they are as likely to become attracted to materialism as any working Charedi woman.

The Sages advise us that upon seeing “that scoundrel” – the evil inclination – “pull him into the study hall.” Yet, if you are not among those who learn in Kollel, the scoundrel is not so easily pulled in. Material tendencies have little to do with a weak reservoir of Torah knowledge or a lack of access to the Jewish bookshelf. The solution does not, therefore, lie in the same.

Serious Torah study requires an enormous investment of time and effort. As such, it doesn’t go well with working for a living (in the modern-day workplace), which rarely leaves people with enough energy and mental space for in-depth studies. This is true even for Yeshiva graduates who are busy making a living and is even truer for women who are subject today to the curses of both Adam and Eve

Serious Torah study requires an enormous investment of time and effort. As such, it doesn’t go well with working for a living (in the modern-day workplace), which rarely leaves people with enough energy and mental space for in-depth studies. This is true even for Yeshiva graduates who are busy making a living and is even truer for women who are subject today to the curses of both Adam and Eve – all the more so since they lack the necessary background in Torah study.

What, then, is the purpose of the call for opening the traditional study hall to women? Do we believe that a daf yomi lesson will inspire Charedi women to abandon their materialistic culture? Is this what will restore the modern working woman to the form of the good, old-fashioned “yiddishe mama”? It seems to me that filling this vacuum requires far more. If Torah study is to be the cure for excessive materialism, we need serious, continuous study, something that most Charedi women simply don’t have the resources for.

But even assuming we are dealing with that rare woman who has both the time and emotional resources for in-depth Torah study, and who truly desires Torah from the depths of her soul, do we really need to orchestrate a radical social change just for her – a call for opening the beis midrash for women? In an age of Kol Halashon, the “Daf Yomi Portal,” the Olamot website, the “Virtual Yeshivah,” and many more similar initiatives of Torah study; in an age of endless availability of Torah lessons of all kinds, recorded and documented and available at the click of a button; in an age when one can purchase any number of Gemara publications with explanations and commentaries in many languages – do we really need this? What prevents a woman who seeks knowledge and loves Torah from approaching this wealth of sources right now and enjoying all there is out there? Is the avoidance of all this by most women a matter of access – or perhaps, as I believe, the result of a lack of interest?

What prevents a woman who seeks knowledge and loves Torah from approaching this wealth of sources right now and enjoying all there is out there? Is the avoidance of all this by most women a matter of access – or perhaps, as I believe, the result of a lack of interest?

Let’s conduct a brief poll among women around us and ask them honestly: What would you prefer to dedicate your little spare time for – a studious Torah lesson on a matter of halacha, or a class on educating children, marriage, or professional development? I have no doubts as to the results of such a poll. Charedi women are practical. Spiritual growth, for them, is becoming better wives and mothers.

 

A Slippery Slope

Aside from there being no apparent need or benefit in promoting Torah study for women, this is also a dangerous step to take: the danger of the slippery slope. Yes, this argument is somewhat worn out, and its popularity has declined. But the fact that it is worn out doesn’t mean it is wrong. Public Torah study for women could cause a blurring of the clear distinctions between men and women, which guard against a crushing slide down the slope of undermining the distinction between the sexes. There is a long road to go between Torah study for women and an ending of the distinction between the sexes, but this road is undoubtedly slippery. Suffice to note the pace of change in general (non-Charedi and non-Jewish) society to realize that.

Public Torah study for women could cause a blurring of the clear distinctions between men and women, which guard against a crushing slide down the slope of undermining the distinction between the sexes. There is a long road to go between Torah study for women and an ending of the distinction between the sexes, but this road is undoubtedly slippery

With all due caution, I would like to point to a trend that gives some explanation for the nature of Torah study for women. Looking around at existing initiatives for women’s Torah study (in particular those incorporating Gemara studies), which are most common outside of Charedi society, it is hard to miss a correlation between support for such programs and a feminist aspiration for equality that tends to stretch halachic boundaries. It seems the demand for female Torah study comes, frequently though admittedly not exclusively, with additional baggage. This baggage may include righteous rage against the “rabbinical establishment,” a demand for egalitarianism in the synagogue, various leniencies in family-related halacha issues (niddah, family planning, and so on), and the massive advancement of pre-nuptial agreements. Sometimes, these agendas will include criticism – implicit and otherwise – of the marriage structure itself.

This connection is not a coincidence. The fine line between the desire to grow spiritually by means of tools that lie “beyond the mechitzah” and the desire to abolish the mechitzah entirely is crossed at light speed. First, the very dismantling of the clear communal-traditional framework undermines the distinction between women and men and opens the door for other changes. In addition, and while respecting some women’s sincere desire for Torah study, it can be very difficult to distinguish between such heartfelt desire and a feminist motivation for approaching the “sacred male world” of Torah study.

I believe the call to move Torah study for women into the public sphere is a cause for concern. We take the lulav on Sukkos and hear shofar on Rosh Hashanah even though we are exempt from those mitzvos. Throughout Jewish history, many women studied Torah, put on tefillin, wore tzitzis, and did all this and far more in the privacy of their own home, as part of their unique worship of God. They did not leave their imprint on history or change the accepted worldview; attempting to do so would have been entirely foreign to their mindset. Their deeds were before God and not before the public.

The move from the private to the public is the point that separates those wise women from the would-be female Torah scholars of today. The problem lies in the move from a call to God to a call to the public and the community.

 

Countering the Material Urge

Having said this, we cannot and must not ignore the problem raised in Lerner’s important lead article. Many women, too many, are swept up into a shallow world of materialism, and an enormous gap is being opened between their limited Jewish knowledge and their professional-personal world, replete with all the secular world has to offer.

It seems to me that the solution ought to be simple. Women’s vulnerability to the lures of materialism and secular ideas is closely related to the spiritual void many of them experience. They were taught Jewish thought in a superficial, unsatisfactory manner and were in no way prepared for life outside the seminary institution in which they studied.

An excellent example for the poor content served to women under the guise of “Jewish though” can be found in an essay by Charedi writer Chaya Hertzberg, who described a chizuk conference for women she attended:

I found myself in the lunchroom of the Talmud Torah, part of a crowd of over two hundred mothers. The speaker, a well-known rabbinic figure, approached the podium and began his speech: “This is an educational evening and an exciting opportunity to deal with the issues important to us all.” I glanced at those sitting next to me. We were all interested, earnestly desiring to listen and absorb. (Good Words; Hebrew, p. 42)

“There is nothing as crucial as modesty,” he began, moving from there to weave “real-life stories” with sayings by the Sages, mixed with hair-raising anecdotes on stringencies and punishments. […] The lecture went on and on, and matters only became more heated: “And as we know, the Shechinah leaves due to lack of modesty … and the reasons for all the terrible tragedies happening day and night on our streets are clear and known to us all, and who of us can say that we did not shed this blood, God forbid?”

I could bear it no longer. What’s going on here? What are we hearing? What for and why? For whom is he quoting these verses? Whose hands did not shed whose blood? To whom is he rendering these horror stories on worms eating the hairs of uncovered heads? Is this why we left our homes at such an hour? To sit here and hear horror stories?

This brave essay warmed my heart. Finally, someone dared to say what I’d been privately thinking (or telling my friends) all these years. We have become used to divrei Torah being angry, causing intense discomfort, and not leading to any kind of spiritual elevation (at best, if not causing the very opposite).

The solution for the shallowness we meet outside is not more shallowness within our community. Superficiality cannot be undone by self-righteousness and terrifying stories. We desire a “gladdening Torah” – clear, enlightening words of Torah that can inspire us to be better. This is an honest and straightforward wish that can be fulfilled without any need for radical changes.

Lerner writes:

It seems we can no longer suffice with the accepted chizuk conferences or rabbinic protests. The alarmist rhetoric hardly supplies a working solution; at best it causes our women pangs of guilt, and at worst its detachment from their everyday experiences pushes them still further away.

I agree with the second part of the statement: scaremongering does not help women deal with the challenges they face or raise their spiritual level. But I disagree with the first part. Chizuk conventions are a fundamentally good idea – they just need to include appropriate content.

The response to the challenge Lerner points out is not conquering new territories. The response to shallowness is diving more deeply into our educational treasures, into the Jewish world of thought we already know, and into the Torah issues most relevant to us. We must do so honestly and sincerely, with connection and with love. We need to expand the knowledge we are already connected to and deepen our relationship with worlds we are already familiar with. We need to make use of the bookshelf we already have.

[I]n our women’s section, we will seek out God passionately in our own style, with our books and teachers, without demanding imports from the men’s section. We will do this with prayer and study, song and dance, fierce emotion, and joyful laughter, each according to her tendencies

Our women do not need a new Torah, but rather the same Torah they have always studied and were engaged in – the Torah of chesed they learned from their teachers. If the chizuk conferences bring us that Torah, only in a more mature, relevant language, one suitable for our challenges and not for those of sixteen-year-old girls, we will benefit greatly.

Thus, in our women’s section, we will seek out God passionately in our own style, with our books and teachers, without demanding imports from the men’s section. We will do this with prayer and study, song and dance, fierce emotion, and joyful laughter, each according to her tendencies. We will do so as women, wives, and mothers who are happy with their place, and who are proud of the role the Creator has given us.

4 thoughts on “Keeping Hold of What We’ve Got

  • The results of the of suggested poll may (or may not) turn out as projected, but the conclusion that this is because “Charedi women are practical. Spiritual growth, for them, is becoming better wives and mothers,” ignores the fact that there are many women/girls, who would be interested in and benefit from learning Gemara and other Torah shebaal peh, but would never do so (or even admit to wanting to do so), because they have been indoctrinated since birth that this is not appropriate for a girl/woman, and they are “good” girls/women, who sincerely desire to serve Hashem and do the “right thing.” They are not “feminists,” and indeed they shrink from that appellation, but they would very much enjoy and gain from real Torah study, if it were sanctioned and/or encouraged.

  • Mrs. Nachtiler is so angry with Dati Leumi women and MO women that she doesn’t seem interested in what they actually think. She talks about them as if they are all alike. She talks about them as if she has just listened to a few and made assumptions about the rest.

    Calling them “would-be” Torah scholars is honestly beneath her. Just because women see the world in a different way than we do doesn’t make them bad, and it certainly doesn’t make her argument to denigrate them.

    I agree with Temima Hirsch’s comment–some women (both MO ones and Haredi) do genuinely want learning that is currently unavailable to them or which earns them scorn (including, apparently from Mrs. Nachtiler). What is in the best interest of Center-Right and Haredi girls and women (such as myself)? It is neither to keep women away from “higher level” study such as Mrs. Nachtiler suggests nor to require it as Mrs. Lerner suggests. It is to give older girls and women choice in the matter, and the ability to choose without fear they will be called “masculine.”

    Mrs. Nachtiler also seems to fear blurring of the sexes a lot, for whatever reason. Ironically, the biggest cause of the blurring between the sexes in the Jewish world is never addressed in the article: the matter of forcing women to go out and work to support husbands even though this it was never, till the last 100 years, the way of so many frum women to do so. I use the word “force” because many schools idolize this behavior and persuade young women they should be doing this without accurately representing it’s drawbacks, which are many and serious, and because when so many women in our world marry so young, they may not feel the confidence to put their foot down and say no to the expectations of parents and prospective suitors.

    It is easier to blame someone on the outside than to look at this situation our community has created for ourselves.

    If we are so worried about women wanting things men have, maybe we need to give women more respect for our traditional roles. I’m not talking “kavod” or necessarily sending women into the public (although I do think there is a place for that). Give women more opportunities to lead WOMEN–why do we still have girls’ schools run by men? When there are conferences about women’s issues–women’s health, the family, agunot, etc.–stop creating panels where just men speak on the topic! Ask women to speak on the issues which pertain to our lives.

    As for the materialism which concerns both Mmes Lerner and Nachtile: All our community members worrying about feminism, worried about homosexuality, worried about political progressives, worried about a variety of “outsiders” to the point of paranoia conveniently turned a blind eye to the peddlers of luxury goods and over-the-top simchos right in our community.

    There are sources in Navi which oppose materialism. Again–this is not a women’s problem, but a men’s and women’s problem (Haredi boys are LESS likely to cover Navi in school than girls, not more). Why aren’t we delving into Navi with boys and girls alike, delving deep into all the wisdom they contain about how over-the-top spending and luxurious homes and clothes are not appropriate to Yirei Shamayim?

    Instead, I see a mixed message: “Look at those goyim who are so superficial!” spoken at events where a nice slab of prime rib is served to us on a plate, while we wear fancy dress even though it’s not Shabbos, a Yom Tov, or a chasuna, and people are donating money through a Chinese auction because they hope to win luxury goods.

    In the Center-Right and Haredi worlds, we need to look to ourselves as the sources of these problems and the solutions. We need to stop blaming “the feminists” or “the Modern ones,” or anyone else. We need leaders–male and female–to put a foot down about materialism. We need them to show women that women are vital to our community by showing them not glory, but simple respect and inclusion AS WOMEN. And we need to start sending more men at younger ages into jobs, with an education provided to them which will allow them to make enough money that women can choose to work or not (for some will choose to work because we feel a calling to medicine or teaching or writing or chemistry or whatever).

  • Ms. Nachtiler creates a guilt by association where some supporters of gemara learning for women are really trying to make deep structural changes within Orthodoxy. However, a look at the thousands of Modern Orthodox/Religious Zionist students that learn gemara each year and do not aim for such changes, but rather continue the traditions of their families, highlights the relative safety of gemara study for women.

    Beyond that, Ms. Nachtiler seems to think that Halachik prenups are against Halacha. Yet it has been supported by leading poskim like: Rav Asher Weiss, Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg zt”l, and Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l  https://theprenup.org/explaining-the-prenup/rabbinic-endorsements/ and many others.

  • The author is spot on about the slippery slope.

    I’m a Dati Leumi woman beset by dilemmas regarding her daughters’ education. I’ve watched over the past decade as the Dati Leumi ulpanot/girls’ high schools have introduced Gemara study as normative or required parts of their curricula. I’ve also watched as the mini-skirt has become the quasi-official uniform of these same schools. It’s impossible not to see a connection between the two phenomena.

    It’s ironic that Mrs. Nachtiler calls out the “modesty diatribe” as an uninspiring form of women’s chuzik. I of course agree with her — but it’s also worth pointing out that the advent of girls’ Gemara study in the MO/DL world has been associated with a dramatic decline in tsnius levels. Yes, the slippery slope! The insistence on exposing one’s flesh, and the failure of supposedly frum educational institutions to hold their pupils to an appropriate standard of dress, reflect capitulation to both radical-feminist and materialist imperatives. And I believe that this capitulation has been aided by the elevation of achievement-oriented and quasi-masculine Gemara study as ideals to which young MO/DL women should aspire.

    Mrs. Klempner wants “choice” with regard to Gemara study for girls/women, but when one has to choose schools for one’s daughters, one is already making choices for them. Sometimes these choices are hard, and we need to keep our eyes on the prize and discern which educational “kav” is most likely to keep our girls in the fold. Mrs. Nachtiler clearly isn’t delegitimizing Gemara study as a specialty option for women with a strong inclination for it. She’s criticizing the ideal of “advanced” Torah learning as a field of Western- and masculine-style “achievement” that is being heavily promoted by “Orthodox feminists” — and that, arguably, is corrupting young women in the MO/DL communities.

    I believe Mrs. Klempner is mistaken in her assessment of Mrs. Nachtiler as “angry” with MO and Dati Leumi women. I don’t find her tone disrespectful in the least. Mrs. Klempner is undoubtedly right to maintain that disrespecting women’s traditional home-based roles, and forcing them to take on men’s parnassa duties, have lamentable consequences. But she’s arguing at cross-purposes here.

Write a Comment

Please write down your comment
Name field is required
Please fill email