On cranial attire
Two nights ago I found myself talking with a classmate about the issue of women and kippot. More particularly, we were discussing her personal discomfort with wearing said Israelite beanies,* which she has lately worn while serving as sha"z due to what she perceives as the community's insistence.**
We were joined after a short while by a yeshiva student who felt that head coverings ought to be required of all women in egalitarian synagogues. He was answered with the idea that it might not be a halakhah that applies to women, but countered that a non-Jewish man who walks into a traditional shul is offered a kippah and is expected to wear it. As such, he reasoned, the issue is clearly not one of ritual halakhah, which non-Jews are not bound to follow.
I was only able to raise a question for discussion before I had to leave: Is it beyond the pale for self-described Egalitarian Jews to consider that there may yet be halakhic differences between men and women?
To clarify: To the extent that the Shulhan Arukh represents a model for unchanging observance — a matter not to be discussed just now — men's head coverings are indeed mandated by halakhah. The difference between that and tefillin, to pick an example, is that there is no scriptural or ritual basis for the practice. So far as I can tell, the halakhah serves roughly the same function as the prohibition against spitting at the dinner table.*** It has, for quite a few centuries and in quite a few places, been the way in which Jewish men conducted themselves respectfully.
Back to women: Should the halakhic field be utterly leveled, with women and men given identical responsibilities?
Women are exempt, we learn, from a few negative commandments of the Torah. One is the prohibition against "rounding" the corners of one's beard.† Women are not bound by this mitzvah for the simple reason that women do not have beards (Women who do have significant amounts of facial hair are nonetheless categorically exempted.) Logically, if we are to render identical women's and men's obligations, this ought to be overturned.
I raise that particular halakhah for three reasons: (1) It doesn't strike me as likely to catch on as a major point of feminist rhetoric; (2) it resembles the kippah issue in that it is a prohibition††; (3) its origin is biblical. If rabbinic injunctions prohibiting certain behaviors by men must be taken up by women, then kal vahomer biblical statutes must be followed.
If you feel that this is a perfectly reasonable course of legislation, best of luck to you. If not — if, perhaps, you find that it's getting a little silly — then you might agree that requiring a woman to cover her head with a kippah or anything else has more to do with sociology than with religious law. That's why I prefer to view the whole thing as a matter of kavod hazzibbur, and therefore to let individual congregations decide.
* She also has concerns with other sorts of hats, but for unrelated reasons.
** This community insists upon many things, some of which contradict others, but there is definitely a contingent that wants all shelihei zibbur to have covered heads, regardless of gender.
*** I don't have a Mishnah Berurah just here with me, but this one can be found in the Makor Hayyim 74:3.
† Lev. 19:27. This is understood to mean cutting certain parts of one's beard down to the skin with a blade.
†† Head coverings are mandated for men in a negative form: one should not say a berakhah bareheaded, etc.
We were joined after a short while by a yeshiva student who felt that head coverings ought to be required of all women in egalitarian synagogues. He was answered with the idea that it might not be a halakhah that applies to women, but countered that a non-Jewish man who walks into a traditional shul is offered a kippah and is expected to wear it. As such, he reasoned, the issue is clearly not one of ritual halakhah, which non-Jews are not bound to follow.
I was only able to raise a question for discussion before I had to leave: Is it beyond the pale for self-described Egalitarian Jews to consider that there may yet be halakhic differences between men and women?
To clarify: To the extent that the Shulhan Arukh represents a model for unchanging observance — a matter not to be discussed just now — men's head coverings are indeed mandated by halakhah. The difference between that and tefillin, to pick an example, is that there is no scriptural or ritual basis for the practice. So far as I can tell, the halakhah serves roughly the same function as the prohibition against spitting at the dinner table.*** It has, for quite a few centuries and in quite a few places, been the way in which Jewish men conducted themselves respectfully.
Back to women: Should the halakhic field be utterly leveled, with women and men given identical responsibilities?
Women are exempt, we learn, from a few negative commandments of the Torah. One is the prohibition against "rounding" the corners of one's beard.† Women are not bound by this mitzvah for the simple reason that women do not have beards (Women who do have significant amounts of facial hair are nonetheless categorically exempted.) Logically, if we are to render identical women's and men's obligations, this ought to be overturned.
I raise that particular halakhah for three reasons: (1) It doesn't strike me as likely to catch on as a major point of feminist rhetoric; (2) it resembles the kippah issue in that it is a prohibition††; (3) its origin is biblical. If rabbinic injunctions prohibiting certain behaviors by men must be taken up by women, then kal vahomer biblical statutes must be followed.
If you feel that this is a perfectly reasonable course of legislation, best of luck to you. If not — if, perhaps, you find that it's getting a little silly — then you might agree that requiring a woman to cover her head with a kippah or anything else has more to do with sociology than with religious law. That's why I prefer to view the whole thing as a matter of kavod hazzibbur, and therefore to let individual congregations decide.
* She also has concerns with other sorts of hats, but for unrelated reasons.
** This community insists upon many things, some of which contradict others, but there is definitely a contingent that wants all shelihei zibbur to have covered heads, regardless of gender.
*** I don't have a Mishnah Berurah just here with me, but this one can be found in the Makor Hayyim 74:3.
† Lev. 19:27. This is understood to mean cutting certain parts of one's beard down to the skin with a blade.
†† Head coverings are mandated for men in a negative form: one should not say a berakhah bareheaded, etc.
posted by Lawrence | 8:11 AM
10 Comments:
Well, we are of course neglecting the fact that some Sephardic poskim do require women to cover their head in some way, married or not, when saying a brakha or hearing a brakha. I believe the Rambam ruled this way.
However, there is a certain force in minhag, which is rather similar to sociological observation, or even to issues of kavod hatzibbur or kavod haTorah. And in that, if men cover their heads as a sign of respect for God, I find it personally uncomfortable that women should not feel that same desire to respect God, or that such a seemingly gender-irrelevant (from the outside, excluding the history here) symbol would be gender-biased. But that's my own personal opinion, and not really quite where you were going with this.
Certainly, I think that Egalitarian halakha still has room for gender distinctions. I think the issue of having specifically gendered clothing is a rather inherent part of halakha, and that this specifically preserves gender differentiation. However, I would say that if we are being Egalitarian in prayer and ritual practice, than those aspects of dress or behavior that specifically relate to prayre and ritual practice should not be gender-differentiated, since in halakha it is similarity of obligation that creates a community.
Outside of the prayer setting, there is perhaps more room for gender differentiation, in halakha that pertains to an individual and less strongly to the community. So your example of keeping the obligation not to round the hair at the corners of the face specifically for men is less of a problem, just as continuing not to obligate men to purify themselves by attending the mikvah after menstruation is less of a problem. While I have heard of men who partake in this practice along with their wives (by immersing after their wives' mentruation is complete, not by any strange form of inducing soem flow of blood from their own bodies- fear not), I would think this difference is much less of a problem for gender equality issues.
I think the issue of kippot on women is in many ways an emotional one- whether people feel that kippot look odd on women, or whether they feel that they are a sign of respect for God, and that one should cover the head in some way regardless of gender. I know that I feel uncomfortable praying without a headcovering for that reason.
The problem I see in leaving the matter to individual communities is that communities tend to formulate fairly strong social norms, and then when one visits outside the community in which one resides, you end up with people feeling particularly uncomfortable because they are being asked to do something that they find to be the opposite of their own practice in prayer. Also, what one does when in a temporary community becomes that much the more difficult, especially when you end up with emotional reactions that the sha"tz is disrespecting God (to take things a bit farther than how I might normally express them).
Naomi,
I would argue that the requirement for Jewish men to wear a kippah is also a result of "custom-based etiquette," albeit one that has been codified. Many non-Jewish communities of the Middle East consider a head covering to be a basic part of respectable prayer attire, and it seems reasonable to assume that this social convention is the origin of the halakhah in question.
Debka,
Point 1: As the overwhelming majority of egalitarian congregations worldwide are Ashkenazi in practice, I don't think it particularly negligent to sidestep Sefaradi rulings on the subject.
Point 2: I think it would be disingenuous of us to describe a kippah as "gender irrelevant." I don't personally think there ought to be a static definition of what defines male and female clothing — if I did, I'd be wearing a skirt and no underwear (Ex. 20:23) — but it's important to remember that most of the Jewish world, including a fair amount of the "egalitarian" world, considers a kippah to be a distinctly male garment. Not for any ingrained halakhic reasons, but simply because it's something that men wear and that most women do not, like a necktie.
Point 3: Based upon my contention that a head covering is simply piece of respectful attire that got itself legislated — with which you may disagree, of course — I think that demanding it of men and women as a piece of ritual attire is logically akin to demanding that men and women uniformly wear slacks or skirts.
Point 4: I'm arguing very much that the women-and-kippot issue is an emotional issue. My concern is that it is not often approached as a halakhic issue, and that debates tend to lean toward the sociological while posing as religio-legal. That is to say, I think the argument most often cited is that MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL, and that the logical ramifications of this, and even the extent to which it is true within egalitarian halakhah, are not often considered.
Final point: You're absolutely right about the problem of communal decision making. Unfortuately, the alternative is to get (or force) everyone to follow the same standard, which would offend half the population as being the wrong decision, and a fair portion of the other half as inhibiting freedom of expression.
Point 1: I was offering that more as a way of providing a halakhic view on both genders covering their heads during prayer that might give the idea of women wearing a head covering some more respectability/legitimacy for those looking for it, rather than saying that it would be a problem to sidestep this ruling.
Point 2:I think that was a mistake coming from my background, from which I am completely trained to see kippot as gender irrelevant. As far as cultural responses, to me that's how I see it. WHile I know much of the observant world disagrees with me, I tend to default to my own training.
Point 3: I agree with the background you present for kippot- but I see legislating some sort of head covering as similar to an office requiring business casual dress if at all possible. If I said kippot here, I'm sorry. But while I feel like these things should be personal choice, they should be at least encouraged as respectful dress for prayer. This is, in many ways easier for women: there are that many more choices: kippot, scarves, hats... Men are mostly limitted to kippot and occasionally hats, but a somewhat more limitted selection thereof.
Point 4: I thought I was pointing out that you were right...
Point 5: My thought was to more include the idea of headcovering as a matter of respect both for boys and girls in the educational system: it worked just fine in my Hebrew school. I'm in no particular rush, although to be entirely honest, I'm generally more comfortable with a sha"tz who has some sort of head covering than not, male or female.
Lawrence: Your latest comment expresses my own thoughts on the matter quite nicely. I think that it would be worthwhile for "halachically egalitarian" Jews to clarify which areas of Jewish law we expect to conform to the egalitarian ideal and which ares we view as exceptions.
Most of us would probably agree that the role of women in Jewish life has changed because the role of women in society has changed. There are, however, two particular areas in which it remains unreasonable to expect equality (inasmuch as "equality" means "sameness"). The first, of course, is biology. It would be silly to try to undermine the fact that men generally have more facial hair than women, or that women menstruate and men do not. This is the way things are, and it is reasonable for halacha to recognize that.
The second area is attire. Even in today's egalitarian world, most people have a sense of gender identity, and we tend to express our gender through clothing. I don't think that gender roles should become oppressive (which is why I find the prohibition against cross-dressing troubling), but I think it reasonable for a woman to choose not to wear a kippah because it makes her feel "unfeminine."
That said, communities will have their silly standards. Wouldn't it be easier on everyone if it were made clear that hats, headscarves, and the like are just as acceptable as kippot?
Debka: Seems I misunderstood some things in your reply, particularly point 4. Can we still be friends?
Elf: Just to be fair, the thing about women shaving does have practical application. Some women do have facial hair, and removal of that hair is a quiet but large industry in the United States.
A sociological problem that I've witnessed regarding the substitution of scarves, hats, etc. for kippot is that some women don't want to wear such things in shul until they're married. I don't really know what to do about this, other than to encounrage those women who are comfortable doing so to wear hats and start a gradual societal change.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Of course we can still be friends. If we weren't, I'd feel awfully lousy about my affectinate regard for your transliteration scheme, or your appreciation of detailed grammar points. Misunderstandings are par for the course.
It would give people much more confidence in wearing scarves and hats if other women didn't start telling them that "you don't have to cover your hair until you're married, you know" or assuming that they are, just because they have a little scarf on. Aka, what our community really needs to do is find some way to better distinguish between head coverings and hair coverings. Between the hair coverings of the Left-wing Orthodox married women and the head coverings of unmarried Conservative women, there is often a small if any difference. It makes it sort of hard to tell.
Interestingly, in my years as perhaps the chief unmarried hat-wearing force in the Brandeis religious world, no one ever asked if I was married. (Though they may have just assumed it. I'm told that someone's visiting grandparents once assumed that my co-gabbai and I were the rabbi and rebbetzin.) Especially not when I was wearing a scarf, which at least in my case does not come close to resembling a hair covering -- though granted, I have a lot of hair.
As for the issue of covering one's head at all, I think that if we're going to have a popular conception that kippot are worn because covering one's head is an important sign of respect for God, it's hard to explain why women shouldn't do it too. We should either get rid of that assumption (how?), or find ways for women to cover their heads with things that aren't kippot and don't make them look married.
Interestingly, I have a friend from Russia who wasn't raised with much in the way of religion -- his grandfather, a rabbi, had deliberately given it up after the Holocaust so his descendants wouldn't have to deal with the burden of being Jewish -- whose mother told him that sheitls for women served the same head-covering function as kippot for men. That sounds like it must have been a widespread belief among at least some group, and would substantiate the idea that women have an obligation to cover their heads in addition to/separately from their hair.
Thanks for mentioning the headcovering versus hair covering distinction. I would have pointed it out if someone else hadn't. Also, there are many people who believe that their way of practicing Judaism is the only right way, which may be why some people perceive headscarves (intended as headcoverings) as covering hair, despite that the ones in question are obviously not married hair coverings (in my eyes).
~Mattea
At some point a few years ago, my rabbi declared that headcoverings were mandatory for everyone attending services, including ALL women. And that no-one would be allowed on the bima without one. Though I notice his wife only covers her head when she has a reason to go up to the bima.
Post a Comment
<< Home