Nothing to help us pray: Women and the Sh’ma—davvenning in the abstract

In her January 17, 2005 post, “Something to help me pray,” (http://fluffykneidle.blogspot.com/2005/01/something-to-help-me-pray.html#comments), FluffyKneidle said, referring to tefillin “I, as a woman, also want that special, special privilege of being able to use G-d given prayer aids. . . . But I’ve been branded a traitor. For wanting to daven better, I’ve be [sic] ridiculed and shunned. Apikores, they’ve called me, Conservative apikores.” Her post has been bothering me ever since.

FluffyKneidle seems to be writing from the perspective of a woman who left, then rejoined, charedi/fervently-Orthodox Judaism. I, on the other, speak as what her friends so delicately describe as a “Conservative apikores (heretic).” But we’re dealing with the same issue from different perspectives.

What’s a woman supposed to do when the Sh’ma says, in no uncertain terms, to bind HaShem’s words on your hand and between your eyes? And when the Sh’ma says that you will see the fringe and remember all HaShem’s mitzot, what’s a woman supposed to look at? Why should we be condemned to pray in the abstract just because we’re female?

Sigh—I asked a question, so now I have to try to answer it.

Chiyuv (obligation):
The rabbis exempted women from most mitzvot (commandments) that must be performed at specific times. But that hasn’t stopped many women from taking upon themselves the obligation to bentsch lulav (say the brachah/blessing over and wave the lulav and etrog), and nobody condemns them for doing so, to the best of my admittedly-limited knowledge. So why should a woman be condemned as an apikorus (heretic) for taking upon herself the obligation to wear tzitzit (ritual fringes on the corners of a garment) and/or to lay tefillin (wear phylacteries)?

Beged Ish (a man’s garment):
The Torah sheBiCh’tav (Written Law) specifically forbids crossdressing. But what does that have to do with this? The Sh’ma says, referring to the ritual fringes on the corners, “Daber el B’nei Yisrael v’amarta alehem v’asu lahem tzitzit al kanfei vigdeihem. . . ,” Speak to the Children of Israel and say to them to make themselves fringes on the corners of their garments . . . “ Of what relevance is it that B’nei Yisrael can be legitimately translated either Children of Israel or Sons of Israel? If we insist that B’nei Yisrael refers only to men, then women don’t have to observe the Sabbath—the text says, after all, “V’shomru V’nei Yisrael et haShabbat . . . “ Would anyone be crazy enough to translate that, “And the Sons of Israel will observe the Sabbath?!” So the fact that the word “B’nei” appears in the quote cannot be used as proof that a tallit (ritual garment bearing fringes on the corners), be it the over-the-clothing or the under-the-clothing (tallit katan) version, is beged ish (a man’s garment). And the quote telling us to bind HaShem’s words on our hands and between our eyes says nothing whatsoever about gender.

Tzniut (Modesty)
Ouch—okay, I’ll admit that there’s a problem with tefillin for those Orthodox women who believe that it’s not tzanua (modest), and, therefore, forbidden, for a woman’s elbows to be visible. I am not aware of any method of laying tefillin that does not require the bayit (“house,” or box housing the parchments) to be placed above the elbow. So any woman who follows this particular interpretation of the laws of tzniut would always have to davven with no males present.

And, last but not least, there’s . . .

The “Looking Over Your Shoulder” problem:
FluffyKneidle’s friends hit the nail right on the head—as with so many issues of how strictly one wishes to interpret the mitzvot, there’s always the problem that anyone perceived of as following a more lenient interpretation is seen as a “Conservative apikores,” a non-Orthodox heretic. Any woman who doesn’t follow the party line concerning tallit and tefillin risks being shunned by her community.

Therefore, no fervently Orthodox woman will ever be able to look at her non-existent tzitzit while she’s reciting the Sh’ma. And I think that’s a shame.