Dr. Sperber's book is concerned with the permissibility of women receiving aliyot in relation the role of the posek, the rabbi who makes halachik decisions. As such, his book is essentially one of case-studies in the halachik process, with women's aliyot being the central case-study.
Before I go on, I should say all translations, as well as paraphrases and analyses of the text, are unauthorized and are my own. Thus, any inconsistenices are the results of my flaws, and should not be attributed to the work itself.
Dr. Sperber starts off his book with a baraita brought in Megillah, 23,a: "All can be appointed to receive one of the 7 aliyot, even a woman and even a minor, but the sages said a woman should not read in the Torah because of "kavod hatzibur", communal respect.*" This is mirrored in a parallel source, Tosefta Megillah 3, 11, Lieberman edition, page תשכו 356: "All may receive on of the 7 aliyot, even a woman or a minor, but we do not bring a woman to read in public".
Dr. Sperber explains the Tannaitic material as follows (this is a translation as well as a paraphrase of his words on pg. 19): From a primary perspective, everyone can read (for receiving an aliyah included actually reading from the Torah in those days)**, including women. This was the halachik situation at one point, before "the sages said" otherwise, in the 3rd century CE, or later. What did the sages said? They said that it is becoming of a woman to not read....If there were no problem of "communal respect", then the halacha would remain in its primary form, that is to say, that women would be able to be called to the Torah and to read from the Torah.
Dr. Sperber then brings a ruling of the Gaonic rabbi, David Pardo, in his work חסדי דוד על תוספתא מגילה, קו עמוד ד, ליבורנו 1776 דצ ירושלים תשלא: "Even though they said a woman should not read from the Torah because of communal respect, if she has already received an aliyah, she should not stop, because according to the essence of the law she is permitted to read. And this is the language of the source in front of us, that we do not bring a woman to read, but if she has gone up on her own initiative, we do not stop her, for this enactment was only made because of communal respect".
Personally, reading this passage, I wondered if perhaps the entire concept of partnership minyanim and women services can be classified as the case of a woman who "has gone up of her own initiative", since the prayer arrangements were not initiated by men, ie the community did not "bring a woman to read", but by women who felt that larger participation was essential to their religious experience ie "has gone up of her own initiative", and that whether or not this trend is a good thing, once it has started, "once she has gone up...we do not stop her".
To return to the Dr. Sperber text: Dr. Sperber then goes on to cite the book ספר הבתים by Rabbi David Barabi Shmuel Kochavi, that a woman may read from the Torah in a prayer service that takes place inside a house, for "communal respect" only applies to a synagogue situation.*** Dr. Sperber also cites Ranni Yaakov Emden in his book "Migdal Oz", in which he says that if the Torah is being read in the house of a woman who has recently given birth, then the woman may read from the Torah, for "communal respect" applies only to "large congregations/great masses of people", and refers to not makig women's reading from the Torah a frequent occurence.****
Dr. Sperber than goes on to cite Rabbi Benzion Abba Shaul, (אןר לציון, חב, אורח, פרק ט, י"ם, תשנג, עמ פו), that the reason the Shulchan Aruch included the beginning of the baraita, that women may receive an aliyah, despite ultimately concluding that they may not do so due to communal respect, is in order to teach that in a place where there is no fear of communal respect being violated, such as a situation where one family is praying together, and the woman is the head of the household, then women may read from the Torah and receive alioyt. He concludes however, by saying that the matter requires further study.
The implication of this halachik responsa is that in any situation in which communal respect is not violated by having a woman receive an aliyah and read from the Torah, she may do so, and the family situation cited was merely meant to serve as an example of one such case. Carrying this implication to its larger conclusion, if in synagogues today, there is "no fear of communal respect being violated", then women may read from the Torah and receive aliyot in modern synagogues.
In the next section, Rabbi Dr. Sperber attempts to delineate a definition of communal respect and to see if the concept applies to today's synagogue situation.
First however, he concludes by examining the phraseology of the beraita: ""The sages said" expresses a language of "That is not appropriate", as opposed to "That is forbidden". The phrase...indicates a tradition of stringency. An examination of other times the phrase "The sages said" appears in the Talmud, makes a clear impression (if not an absolute proof), that the saying of the sages is not in the realm of a new decree of something forbidden stemming from the power of the rabbis, but rather, a practical enactment in a halchik policy designed to prevent a certain outcome."
* An alternative, perhaps more accurate translation: "respect for the congregation".
** Today, aliyot work as follows: Each week, on the Sabbath, a portion of the Torah is read out loud, during prayer services. This portion is divided into 7 sections. An official reader appointed by the community reads out loud, chanting the words according to a specific tune known as trop. For each of the seven sections, an individual is invited up to the bimah, the stage upon which the Torah is read. This individual then recites blessings over that section of the Torah reading, and stands until the official reader has finished reading the section out loud. It used to be that there was no official reader. Instead, 7 individuals would be called up, and would each both recite the blessings over their portion and read their portion out loud, according to the tune of the trop.
*** This may be an extra support to partnership minyans that take place in houses. Indeed, most often, the alternative prayer services set up to be more inclusive of women do not take place in the main sanctuary. Does this lessen the "communal respect" issue?
**** In Rav Emden's words I wonder if we might seek a lessen for sensitivity to the needs of women who have just given birth or are the primary caregivers for young children. Today, if a woman has just given birth, her husband goes to synagogue to recite certain public blessings on her behalf, while she usually stays at home with the baby. Perhaps Rav Emden's words speak of a situation of bringing prayer-services to the woman, so she does not have to miss out because she can not leave the house. In general, a model of domestic worship, in which public prayer convenes in the private sphere, may be a way of enabling more women with young children to be part of public prayer. This is not to deny the need for men to shoulder more child caregiver burdens, so that the norm is for childraising to be an equal parnership, with couples having the option of deviating from that norm and choosing for one parent to be the primary caregiver, as opposed to the current norm in which the mother is the primary caregiver. It is to acknowledge however, that given current reality, finding molds of communal prayer that accomodate this reality may be productive for the moment, and that biology does not make it likely that this reality will change for mothers with infants.
No comments:
Post a Comment