To Be a Charedi Woman

Reading the articles seeking to connect Charedi women to active Torah study, I felt both happy and frustrated. Happy, for the opportunity for Torah to become more present in the life of Charedi women;  and frustrated, since the proposal to increase Torah learning is but a cosmetic solution that fails to address the root of the problem. In my view, female Torah study will not become common in the Charedi world if we do not invest deep thought in understanding the underlying cause of distress among Charedi women.

Many, including women who are learned and knowledge-hungry, tell me something along the following lines: “I’ve lost interest. All that matters is that my husband learns.” Others, righteous and God-fearing ladies, openly express wonder and barely-hidden contempt when I propose that we open a book and learn when we meet at family gatherings or social events. They regard such initiatives as “male,” or “strange.” Learning Torah of their own volition simply doesn’t align with their traditional role: dress well, exchange recipes, gossip occasionally, and press an ear to the mechitzah to hear the divrei Torah of brothers or brothers-in-law before complimenting the great wife behind her illustrious husband.

In the following lines, I will try and examine why spiritual passion is so dormant among Charedi women when it comes to independent Torah study. To this end, I will make use of a psycho-historical analysis of the way in which Charedi women understand their role in general, and their role in a man’s world in particular.

 

From Object to Subject: Developing “Self” in the Modern World

“A woman is 30% of her husband’s soul, the husband is 70%.” “It doesn’t matter if you’re hungry or dead tired; when your husband comes home – even if you have just given birth, you get up to serve him a healthy meal.” “The core of the woman’s existence in this world and the world to come depends on her husband; he is the channel to her reward.” “A woman does not need to check on her husband to see if he studies all day or perhaps slacks off; the very fact she sends him to learn is enough for her to receive reward as though he learns for the entire day.”

Statements such as these, which are all too familiar for any graduate of Charedi girls’ schools, were the great engines providing energy for three generations of Charedi women. These women were devoted to bearing children, as many as possible, and raising them in an atmosphere of Torah and fear of Heaven. The dependency of women’s spirituality on their husbands, thereby cementing a clear hierarchy between the two, was intended to strengthen the home – with the man as its <aster.

This mindset, which certainly has its sources in Jewish thought, has doubtless proved itself. It helped create devotion to the spirit of Torah and the chain of generations, granting solid foundations to many Torah homes. But it seems that the time has come to rethink the costs that this mindset has exacted from Charedi society and from women in particular. Moreover, we should carefully consider whether such a philosophy benefits or harms the eternal mission of seeking God with all our heart.

The above-mentioned messages, on which generations of women were raised, view women as objects: tool in their husband’s service. He is at the center of the universe, the world was created for him, while the woman was created to serve him. True, he learns Torah and worships God, so that his service is the service of Torah. But the distinction between the book and its bearer can quickly become blurred, so the bearer ends up becoming the object of worship himself

Turning the woman into an object means  that she lacks the privilege of seeking herself as a subject, a “self” possessing inherent worth rather than value deriving from “the system.” Why is it important that a woman see herself as a “subject”? This question requires a brief introduction to the human sense of “self” and its significance.

For most of human history, the concepts of self and individuality were virtually unheard of. People saw themselves as part of a broader fabric of connections, within which they played a certain role. This was true of man and woman, noble and slave – everyone was part of the great chain of being, and the differences between them were hierarchical. Only towards the modern era did thinking start to move from man as part of a communal fabric to his conception as an individual, possessing his own dignity and standing.

Since the dawn of the modern era, many thinkers have tried to understand how people think of themselves and create their autonomy. Such new ideas focused initially on men, who were no longer seen as part of the fabric of the feudal system. From then on, every person – every man, rather – was to have value merely by being human. He had the right to property, to thought, to action, and so on.

The woman of the home was perceived as an integral part of her husband; she was his property, an object to serve his needs. She was a creature whose existence was defined and granted meaning solely through its connection with its owner. Only at a later stage did the rebellious spirit of feminist thinking demand that women be considered individuals

The first stage of the revolution left women behind. The woman of the home was perceived as an integral part of her husband; she was his property, an object to serve his needs. She was a creature whose existence was defined and granted meaning solely through its connection with its owner. Only at a later stage did the rebellious spirit of feminist thinking demand that women be considered individuals. The cornerstone of feminism was the belief that the woman is a “subject,” an entity in its own right.

Let me stress: Jewish thought has always emphasized the honor and respect due to the wife and mother. Her rights were anchored in Jewish halacha, including various binding obligations for men to provide for and look after their wives. Yet, in a hierarchical world where individuals received meaning from their place in the social order, women were considered secondary to men. Marriages could be based on much respect and gentleness towards women, but they didn’t pre-assume that men and women were creations with value in their own right.

The Charedi educational approach I have described still speaks a language that views women as objects. It is my belief, though, that this view can no longer serve as an ideological platform for women in our time. In today’s reality, this position exacts a high cost and imposes real barriers on relations between husband and wife, as well as on women’s chances to elevate their spiritual stature. The justifications of yesteryear no longer hold water in the prevalent spirit of our own age.

 

Self-Fulfillment Through Dependence

What happens in the soul of a modern woman who is sustained by the idea of spiritual dependence on her husband? And what happens when the relevant woman grew up in a broader social context that is not hierarchical and revolves around the ideal of self-fulfillment?

A common consequence is an internal sense of emptiness. Innumerable women walk around with a sense of missing out. They often express disappointment that their husbands aren’t “good enough.” They grew up with the idea that their self-fulfillment would come through being the wives of the next Gedolim, rabbinical leaders of the generation. Emotional stories of wives’ devotion to talmidei chachamim, delivered with pathos by female lecturers, stirred their souls during Shabbos camps. They seek the one who is due to grant them an inheritance of both worlds, and they “work on themselves” to accept the will of Providence when their husband turns out an imperfect man.

A superb expression of this female helplessness, as well as an attempt toward a solution to it, can be found in one of the popular women’s parashah newsletters (a welcome and positive phenomenon), where the following passage was published:

Naomi is always looking for a redeemer. That’s what the spouse is called in Ruth: Redeemer, redeemer, redeemer. In the old world, a man was a redeemer. “You have to find a redeemer. He will feed you and you will be exclusively coupled with him, and then no one can harass you.” And Ruth – she will never say that word, “redeemer.” She isn’t seeking a flesh and blood redeemer. Ruth knows that the man is not the redeemer of the woman. She knows that there is only one Redeemer – in Heaven.

With great talent, wit, and wisdom, the female author tries to deal with the objectification that women experience. If the modern woman feels distressed at her self-realization being dependent on her husband’s “redemption,” she might consider a new proposal: Give up the dependence in favor of relying on God. I have no objection to opening a direct channel of prayer and trust in God, but I think this is analogous to a loose band-aid for a deep wound that requires thorough treatment.

This point deserves clarification. Women today, including Charedi women, are not Ruth and Naomi. The world in which Ruth and Naomi lived was a world in which an individual did not see himself as a subject. He did not seek “self-fulfillment” but rather belonged to a social system that defined his identity: both men and women derived their self-understanding from their social milieu and its hierarchical system. Women derived meaning from the fact they were married to men, while men derived meaning from their marriage to women, or to the daughters of other men. Neither derived their sense of existence from themselves, but from their place in the communal hierarchy.

Charedi women today, on the other hand, have adopted a modern mindset. They seek self-fulfillment and not a place in the pecking order. At this point, things begin to fall apart. The Charedi education system in our day does not tell women to let go of self-fulfillment. It cannot because by now the sense of self is inseparable from our identity

Charedi women today, on the other hand, have adopted a modern mindset. They seek self-fulfillment and not a place in the pecking order. At this point, things begin to fall apart. The Charedi education system in our day does not tell women to let go of self-fulfillment. It cannot because by now the sense of self is inseparable from our identity. What it does teach is that a woman’s self-fulfillment comes from serving her husband. Hierarchical language is utilized for the needs of self-fulfillment. The end result is objectification: a process that occurs when a subject understands that his self-fulfillment comes via making himself into an object. The distress of the women we described, the feelings of emptiness, and missed chances, are all consequences of the destructive encounter between two different languages: the language of self-fulfillment and the language of hierarchical worldview.

 

If I am not for Myself, who am I?

Resolving the problem of women’s sense of objectification requires a change in mindset. We must find a way to help women think of themselves as subjects, understanding that their value derives from their own selves and their own choices, rather than dependence on others.

Such a pivot requires a change in understanding women’s place in a relationship. The simplistic understanding of the verse “And he will rule over you” has led to a detachment between men and women, a forgoing of the warm connection between them, and a sense of missed opportunity, failure, or guilt, if the husband fails to fulfill the (not necessarily realistic) hopes his wife pinned on him. This situation calls on us to redefine the place of women as active subjects within the marriage, precisely to preserve love and fraternity, peace and friendship.

It is time for the redeemer to become a friend, a man, at the same level as the woman, with whom he builds a home in fraternity and peace. Their togetherness shouldn’t mean symbiosis.  It should leave space for the woman to think, decide, be, without being dependent on him.

The woman of the family will probably not be the only spouse relieved by such a change. When she discovers her ability to redeem her life even if her husband is not the embodiment of her dreams, her man will be relieved as well. The sense that his wife’s reward is dependent on him, and that he must be her spiritual channel at all times, could trap him into a persona alien to his own spirit.

When either the man or the woman is an object in a relationship, the other half in the relationship also necessarily becomes an object. If the woman’s existence is dependent on him, then his own existence becomes a tool for confirming hers. The bonds are mutual. Indeed, many men feel strangled in such relationships. But the chains are wrought of institutional indoctrination training women to be receptacles with no additional function. This education is ultimately responsible for much domestic unhappiness and an experience of deficiency that cannot be cured.

Unfortunately, I have run into too many smart, God-fearing women, who could develop spiritually and intellectually far beyond where they ended up: as teachers in Charedi seminaries. As empty-nesters of a certain age, they remain frustrated for lack of avenues for personal growth

Unfortunately, I have run into too many smart, God-fearing women, who could develop spiritually and intellectually far beyond where they ended up: as teachers in Charedi seminaries. As empty-nesters of a certain age, they remain frustrated for lack of avenues for personal growth. This frustration often leads to bitter and self-righteous spying on errant students or petty jealousies and competition within the expanded family or community. A more developed sense of being a subject could have helped them grow, for instance by means of Torah study, and thus contribute significantly to the world of female education. But some of them do not even consider this an option, while others fear the very idea. “I have a yetzer hara to learn Gemara in depth,” one venerable teacher told me; “I need to work on myself to avoid the prohibition.”

A message of mutuality in which both men and women have space to grow, of togetherness that does not restrain, leaves space for personal choices that do not align with the spouse’s spiritual, social, or emotional fantasies. The happy consequence is that both can develop their spiritual stature in a deep and significant way. By way of illustration, a woman I know who suffered much for being married to a man who is not a talmid chacham was encouraged to start learning herself. Her shock was quickly replaced by wonder at the fact she had never thought of the idea. After a few months of committed and serious Bible study, an enthusiastic search for the next study subject replaced her obsessive sense of missed opportunity regarding her husband. As she put it: “I never thought my happiness had anything to do with me; it was clear to me that Torah, meaning, value, had to run through him.”

 

From Hierarchy to Symmetry

Prima facie, our sources seem to support the hierarchical model alone, in which the woman depends on the man and has no independent existence of her own. But a look at the kabalistic-Chassidic school reveals another form of couple-hood, demonstrating that the hierarchical model is not set in stone. “And he will rule over you” is not a commandment or a binding statement about life, but rather a marker along a historical timeline – a timeline that will eventually see the replacement of the dependent relationship with the mutual one, in which two subjects stand ready to worship their Creator. The Alter Rebbe of Chabad put it thus:

This is as it is said: “God […] will speedily hear the voice of the bride,” while now in times of exile it is said: “I have fallen silent,” which is an aspect of silence. As a mute person, he will not open his mouth. […] Thus the groom says to his bride “You are hereby betrothed to me,” and the bride is silent. But in the future, she will also be a flowing source, and we will read “the voice of the bride.” In addition, we can now understand the silent rendition of the Amida prayer, for today the feminine aspect is a recipient alone and not a flowing source. But in the future, when she rises to be a flowing source like the male side, then the Amida will be said out loud, and the voice of the bride will be heard.

Many fear giving up the hierarchical model, which defined and organized the life of couples for generations, in favor of a more mutual and independent model. They see this call as part of a movement that seeks to dismantle and destroy the basic family unit. While this fear is worth listening to, the words of the Tania explain that such a change is not a route to chaos, but rather one that leads to redemption.

The mutual model of couple-hood, with two subjects looking at one another at eye level, includes even the addressee of the Amida prayer – the Creator. Unlike some feminist approaches that challenge the Divine presence and its power to determine the path of human life, our Jewish model ensures the presence of God within the relationship between two subjects

The mutual model of couple-hood, with two subjects looking at one another at eye level, includes even the addressee of the Amida prayer – the Creator. Unlike some feminist approaches that challenge the Divine presence and its power to determine the path of human life, our Jewish model ensures the presence of God within the relationship between two subjects. They lift their eyes to Him and thus make space for each other – man for his wife, woman for her husband.

 

A Subject at Creation

The Torah of Israel, which views the relationship between man and woman as the foundation for family and for elevated existence,  tells us about the creation of man and his wife. The plain sense of the text fits the form of connection common for generations; yet  the Sages, followed by the masters of Kaballah and Chassidus, added a midrashic layer. Their words clearly point to the approach identified by the Tania, turning the woman from object to subject:

And God created Man in His image; In the Image of God, male and female, He created them … And Hashem God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs … And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Bereishis 1:27; 2:21)

A simplistic reading of this story points to an “original” male from which woman was created, making her secondary to him. But a brief glance at Rashi directs us to the words of the Sages which present us with a more complicated picture: “That He created them as two faces in the first creation and then divided them”:

Said Rabbi Yirmiyah ben Elazar: When God created Adam, He created him as an androgynous [both male and female], as it is written: “Male and female, He created them.” Said Rabbi Shmuel Bar Nachman: When God created Man he created him as [having two faces connected to each other] and He cut them in two, and made them backs, a back to here and a back here. They challenged him: But it is not written “And He took one of his ribs”? He answered them: “From both sides.”

The Creation story of the Sages starts at the point where Man and Woman were created together with their backs connected, faces turned in opposite directions. This is the first model, in which man and woman are absolutely bound to each other, but are also unable to turn toward one another. This situation, “back to back,” is marked out by the masters of Kabbalah as symbolizing an imperfect world, seeking repair and redemption.

At the second stage, dubbed nesira, God slices the back of the two-sexed creation, leading to the woman being separated from the man, so they both become independent creatures. This ostensibly creates the danger of separation and detachment, yet the aim is not to form alienated independence. On the contrary, it is precisely after the sawing, when their faces turn and they see each other at eye level, that the possibility for a deeper relationship, one that can create life, first appears. This is the “face to face” stage which the masters of kabbalah perceive as the picture of a world that has been redeemed. Two distinct subjects, Man and Woman, are thus born.

If we seek to increase the study of Torah among women and quench their spiritual thirst, we must replace large swaths of our current educational discourse. So long as our girls are reared on a hierarchical model where women have nothing of their own, they will perhaps become devoted to their studying husbands, but significant portions of their intellect and spirit will be left to atrophy

If we seek to increase the study of Torah among women and quench their spiritual thirst, we must replace large swaths of our current educational discourse. So long as our girls are reared on a hierarchical model where women have nothing of their own, they will perhaps become devoted to their studying husbands, but significant portions of their intellect and spirit will be left to atrophy. They will not even feel the desire to know and study. Their period of acquiring knowledge will end upon graduation from their Bais Yaakov seminary.

Can our community give up on the opportunities for Torah study for half the population? Is this not a violation of our  belief that Man was created alone and must discern and confirm his duty in his private, unique, irreplaceable world? The time has come to establish a language in which women have a spiritual place of their own, which does not depend on men. We need to aim for an educational and spiritual consciousness that views each woman as a “self,” acting, choosing, and wanting by her own steam. Such a mindset will enable both man and woman to climb up the ladder whose head seeks the Heavens.

 

Charedi Femininity: A Model For an Identity-Less World

I have sought to point out the weak link in the chain of Charedi education for women. In conclusion, I wish to qualify my previous argument, and briefly examine the great contribution of the Charedi female image to the fabric of Jewish and human consciousness in our time.

Many women, exposed to the feminist world of content, tend to blindly follow theories that promise to free them from bonds of yore. In so doing, they stand to lose profound meanings that have played a crucial role in their emotional strength and sense of mission. Dominant feminist thought is imbued with the postmodern mindset whereby nothing is fixed, nothing is eternal. The great priestesses of identity-erasure say so with relish: “Be a human being as you wish and don’t let anyone dictate what you are”; “The concept of ‘woman’ is an invention we need to shed.”

Under the boots of such an undermining credo, many women lose the ability to define their own desires and ambitions. The art of motherhood and the secrets of empathy and sensitivity are pushed aside. The careerist model is the undisputed victor, and the commandment to be a strong, independent, opinionated woman sometimes becomes nothing but a burden. The traditional store of meanings, which nourished the feminine world of spirit for generations, is in danger of being forgotten.

Yes, there are women with a “male” personality, externalized and tough. It’s also no secret that there are men who are considered soft, gentle, and passive, and who do not fit the model of the “conquering male.” Recognizing the flexibility of the female and male models, a recognition advanced thanks to feminist thinking, is a welcome development. It allows each couple to build their home according to their unique, personal needs. However, the figures of the giving mother and the warm wife should not be allowed to fade from memory, becoming part of the “primitive” and dark past. That model of the Charedi woman remains a source of inspiration, a spiritual-social resource with much to offer a world in which domesticity and loyalty are gradually being eroded.

Western thinking often looks at Charedi women and their way of life with either contempt or pity. It applies thought patterns that are distant from Torah faith and understanding – a faith from which our derive much joy and meaning. As faulty as our Torah education for girls might be, we must not be tempted by such whisperings. What we should do, however, is to strive to understand and analyze the world of values relevant to Charedi women, and emphasize their spiritual and emotional strengths. Armed with this knowledge and understanding we can propose a sort of archetype – too ideal for reality, but still a source of inspiration and power – as a symbol of brave and loyal womanhood.

Canonical figures from Charedi biographical literature are our pillar of fire, showing us the way towards the formation of a personality combining strength and warmth. Heroines like Rebbetzin Herman (“All for the Boss”), Pearl Beinisch (“To Vanquish the Dragon”), and Dina Gabel (“Behind the Ice Curtain”) are but a few examples from a soundtrack that has been listened to by countless girls and women who grew into a life of power and meaning. In our day, absent the hair-raising travails and trials of those heroines, we are called to continue to weave femininities true and literary that will inspire this generation. Their example should help us everywhere: from office meetings to the family Shabbos table.

Blasting feminism wholesale or spinelessly following any new approach it offers are both too easy for God-seekers blessed with intelligence. Nuanced thinking sanctifies the old and the eternal, but also seeks to translate it into something contemporary and applicable. This is the only way to ensure future security and stability alongside development and renewal in the Jewish family’s lifecycle and the annals of the Eternal People.

The status of Charedi women is changing, like it or not. The challenge we face now is defining that status in a mature, nuanced manner, which neither fears change nor loses its healthy sense and calm confidence in the face of every angry critical theory

When I was a teenager, an older and old-fashioned teacher, who might be held in contempt today by more modern women, told us during a class: “I was once forced to travel abroad for medical treatment for my husband. I was broken and lost, and my father, a Jerusalemite with his broad hat and ill-fitting coat, accompanied me almost to the plane, telling me in a Yiddish full of compassion and command: ‘Good luck to you, my daughter, on your way to New York, and don’t forget, meidele, don’t forget that you were born in Meah Shearim!” Her innocent, personal story, contained a universal and incomparably wise message, which informs my own path, notwithstanding its divergence from the neatly drawn halls of rigid absolutism.

The status of Charedi women is changing, like it or not. The challenge we face now is defining that status in a mature, nuanced manner, which neither fears change nor loses its healthy sense and calm confidence in the face of every angry critical theory. This is how we will meet the challenge: proud of everything related to our deep spiritual roots, and remembering the “Meah Shearim” we were raised in. We will hold on to stable and eternal models, adding our own imprint here and there. Only thus can we create our own character as women of stature.

Mrs. Lerner’s article ends with the words of the Mordechai: “All our women are important, and need to recline.” Already then, halacha pointed to a renewed worldview, opening the option for women to be equals at the Seder table, the table of faith, because “they are important.” May it be that all of us, women as men, individuals and communities, continue to draw the circles of family and the outlines of women’s place at home and in the wider world, as appropriate for the Torah of Israel – and also for our women.