There are different opinions regarding how the Torah treats women. Some believe that the Torah needed to accommodate the primitive ideas of the Israelites and allow such things as slavery, sacrifices, the harsh punishment of an eye for an eye, and even permitted Israelite soldiers to mistreat female enemy captives somewhat. This was done because the people at the time the Torah was given would not have accepted the Torah if it had taught more rational behavior explicitly instead of only hinting at it. Therefore, since, at that time and even centuries later, women were foolishly considered far inferior to men, they had to be shown in the Torah as second-class citizens even though the Torah inserts many hints to the alert that this view is terrible.
This is one of the many ingenious teachings and ideas in the Torah. By its laws, it somewhat modified the primitive views of the ancients, which the Israelites accepted, bringing them closer to rational behavior, and by many hints, such as limiting the years of slavery, insisting that they be given payments at the end of their tenure, freeing them if they were mistreated, and other rules the Torah taught the people that slavery was wrong.
Years later, the Greek pagan Plato (c.427-c.348 BCE) called such ideas “noble lies” because they gave the people rules they could accept but taught them better behavior. Still, later, the Muslim polymath philosopher ibn Tofayl (c.1109-c.1185) told a tale expressing this idea in his highly praised book Hayy ibn Yaqzan, which some philosophy professors said influenced Maimonides (1138-1204), who called them “Essential Truths.”
Maimonides, for example, told an essential truth to the Jews of Yemen who were suffering under the cruel Yemen government that the messiah would soon miraculously appear to save them, even though he believed the messianic age would be a natural event whose coming he could not predict.
According to this view, the biblical commands were given to men. Women were given no biblical commands. This is seen to be indicated in Exodus 19:15, which states that only men are required to prepare for the delivery of the Decalogue. Women were expected to obey their fathers while they lived in his house or their husbands when they married, as indicated in Numbers 30:2-17.
Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865), known as Shadal, disagreed. He was a brilliant Orthodox Jewish scholar, the great-grandnephew of the equally famous Moses Hayyim Luzzatto (1707-1747), and the author of Mesilla Yesharim. He was a devout believer that God delivered the Torah to Israel.
Shadal rejected the idea that the Torah demeaned women. He saw no distinction in the Torah on how women were treated, and he felt that women and men were obliged in the Torah equally to observe the Torah’s commands.
This raises the question. According to both positions, how is it that the rabbis in post-biblical times decreed that women are not obligated to observe Torah positive commands that are time-bound, such as dwelling in a sukkah, using the four species on the holiday of Sukkot, and wearing Tefillin since the observances are positive commands? They ruled that women are exempt from positive biblical commands that occur at a specific time. For example, the rabbis decreed that wearing Tefillin was not required at night or on Shabbat, so women were exempt from wearing them.
The rabbis made one exception. Women must observe positive commands that occur at a specific time with negative commands connected with them, such as the Shabbat, which is required in the Decalogue, but there are things that one may not do on the Shabbat.
Shadal explained his view that the rabbis allowed women not to have to observe specific biblical laws because he supposed that when the Torah was revealed, women were treated fairly and equally to men. However, during the rabbinical period, the rabbis noted that women were no longer treated as they should and were obliged to do much more work in their homes for their families. So, Shadal claims that the rabbis, having compassion upon women, lessened their religious burden by allowing them to ignore many positive biblical commands.
I have difficulty accepting Shadal’s reasoning. Given Shadal’s firmly held conviction that the Torah and its commands are from God, how could he have believed that the rabbis could annul what he, Shadal, felt God desired men and women to do?
I do not think he could argue that the rabbis were able to annul sacrifices, slavery, and similar laws, so they could also annul laws such as tefillin and Sukkot. There is a profound difference between slavery and sacrifices on the one hand and tefillin and sukkot on the other. God hinted that he did not want sacrifices, slavery, and similar laws. Shadal himself said that God wanted women to observe the positive laws.
Therefore, I think the Torah did not obligate women to observe the laws because they were, by necessity, because of primitive notions, treated as non-entities in the past. Later, when they were treated better, the rabbis understood that they were equal to men and, therefore, also obligated women to observe the biblical commands, but they allowed them the dispensation.
Am in support of your essay, dear Rabbi Israel Drazin; my viewpoint on the status of women in Oriential societies is mainly influenced by the studies of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunther_Plaut. Best: stephen.
PS///I do not support the comment of Steve Chan Luong and I gave my direct reply.(August 7, 2024 at 10:48 AM), with respect to the facts of modern life science.
Great.
I agree with you and disagree with Shadal. It seems that women were not required to observe Torah laws. I can’t think of one law they were obligated to keep. Women were not allowed to keep time-bound laws.
I think Shadal’s view that the rabbis had compassion on women, thereby limiting their religious duty is not a good argument. One could extrapolate and ask why didn’t God have compassion on the Jewish nation and never gave any laws at all. In my view, it is compassionate that we have wonderful laws to observe.
The only thing I disagree with is the view that the biblical God does not want sacrifices. It seems to me that the biblical God demands sacrifices. He commands it in the Torah. However, I agree with you and Maimonides that God does not want sacrifice. I think if God wrote the Torah himself he would have excluded sacrifices. Moses added sacrifices because he mistakenly thought that God wanted sacrifices.
We agree except about sacrifices. We do not have to agree on everything.
Yes, that is true that we do not have to agree on everything. We do agree on most things. I am trying to understand. If God in the Bible does not want sacrifices why did he command it? I understood that Maimonides did not believe that God wants sacrifices and that Maimonides did not believe in Torah revelation. Thus, God never demanded sacrifices at all. I also understand Maimonides to make a rationalization for the inclusion of sacrifices, namely, to wean the Israelites away from idolatry.
Dear Rabbi Israel Drazin, most available texts do suggest that women are exempt from certain mitzvot (commandments) that are time-bound due to the responsibilities they traditionally held, rather than being viewed as non-entities. Over time, interpretations of the Torah have evolved, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that women were initially treated as non-entities or that they became obligated to observe all commandments strictly because they were later perceived as equal to men. Some interpretations stress that the different obligations for men and women reflect differing roles rather than indicating a hierarchy of importance or value. As per the texts, women are obligated to observe some mitzvots while they are exempt from others due to various reasons, including practical applicability and their traditional roles and responsibilities. It is important to note that the exemptions and obligations regarding women’s observance of mitzvots are complex and subject to interpretation and debate among scholars and within different Jewish communities. However, am in agreement with all your observations, with respect to my knowledge of the history of Oriental societies and the status of women. Best: stephen
Women are stupid.
Because they come from men sperm which come from men
🙂 i kid.
In all seriousness though we need to respect all creation.
Man and woman and puppies and animal.
Yes, we need to respect all of creation.
Your statement seems to misunderstand the biological process of human reproduction and makes a misguided assumption about gender and intelligence. Humans, regardless of gender, receive genetic material from both their mother and father. Sperm, which is contributed by the male, carries half of the genetic information necessary to form a human embryo, and the other half is provided by the female’s egg. Therefore, it isn’t accurate or fair to say that women’s intelligence (or lack thereof, as the statement suggests) comes from men. Furthermore, intelligence is a complex trait that is influenced by a myriad of factors, including genetics, environment, upbringing, and education, and is not determined by one’s gender.
Dear Stephen,
You may be right in standing up for the traaditional interpretation of the status of women in ancient Israel. I appriciate your knowlege. However, I have an open mind about it because of the reasoning I gave in my essay.