By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5TJT.com

A recent article published by JTA highlighted a Siyum HaShas for women only – spearheaded by an orthodox woman. Michelle Cohen Farber, founder of Hadran: Advancing Talmud Study for Women and Daf Yomi for Women is organizing the first ever global daf yomi siyum for women. Farber has rented the largest hall in Jerusalem’s Binyanei Ha-uma Conference Center for January 5, 2020. The event is titled “Hadran – The Siyum HaShas for Women.”

Predictably, the reactions were quite varied.

“What? This is an attempt to inject feminism in the Torah world! It must be stopped at all costs and how dare Torah websites print such a thing!”

Others reacted in quite the opposite direction:

“Well, finally, it is about time!”

“Women need to be treated more inclusively. If not – then will begin to be leaving yiddishkeit in droves.”

What follows is a halachic analysis of the relevant Torah sources, as well as a historic overview of the issue. We will begin with the pertinent sections in the Talmud. One main source is found in the Gemorah in Kiddushin (29b).

The Gemorah there states that women are exempt from the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, citing a drasha on the verse – and you shall teach them to your sons– velimadtem osam es bnaichem – bnaichem velo bnosaichem – your sons and NOT your daughters.

Indeed, the Mishna in the Gemorah in Sotah (20a) states that whomsoever teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her tiflus. The exact meaning of the word Tiflus is the subject of debate (and could even be dependent upon what the exact original text was). Rashi, on the Gemorah, indicates that the meaning refers to inappropriate activity of an untoward nature. The Rambam in his Peirush HaMishnayos indicates that the meaning refers to useless frivolous activity.

The other question that we have is what was the exact text in the first place? Does it say k’ilu melamda tiflus or does it say melamda tiflus?

THE RAMBAM’S DISTINCTION

The Rambam Hilchos Talmud Torah (1:13) draws a distinction between the written law and the oral law. He writes that the prohibition of teaching the written law is only lechatchila [ideally]. However if one did so it is not tantamount to teaching tiflus. He does rule that in regard to the oral law – it is tantamount to teaching tiflus.

THE PARAMETERS OF THE GEMORAH IN KIDDUSHIN

The Rambam in Hilchos Talmud Torah end of chapter one explains that a woman who does study Torah receives merit for it, but not like the merit of one who is commanded in doing so. Thus, the Gemorah in Kiddushin is clearly understood by the Rambam as only delineating who is obligated in learning. If someone wishes to volunteer to learn – it is not only permitted but one receives some merit doing so.

THE PARAMETERS OF THE GEMORAH IN SOTAH

There are many commentators that qualify the Gemorah in Sotah as saying that the prohibition is only if one teaches his daughter – but if the woman undertakes learning it herself – then there is no prohibition.

This is the position of Rabbi Yaakov Molin (Ashkenazic Gadol in the 1400’s) author of the Maharil (Maharil HaChadashos 45:2), the Yefei Lev (YD 246:19), and the Avi Ezri (Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13).

There is, however, a contradiction in the Maharil because in his response (Siman 199) he understands the notion of Tiflus to include women who undertake the study themselves as well.

The Shaivet HaLevi (Vol. VIII Siman 211) understands the prohibition as including a woman who undertakes the study by herself as well. Rav Vosner zt”l cites a proof from the Prisha in YD 246:15.

The reading from the Prisha, however, is not so clear. Indeed, it could be that the opposite may be inferred from the Prisha.

The Sefer Chassidim 835 writes that we are obligated to teach our daughters all that is necessary to perform the Mitzvos. What is forbidden? The depth of Talmud, the inner secret reasons.

LATE 1800’S and EARLY 1900’S

As a general rule, with the exception of the Neo-Orthodox movement of Germany, and certain mixed Chadarim in both the Pale of Settlement, and the Austro-Hungarian empire, girls were not formally instructed in Chumash nor in Halacha. There were some families that employed tutors to teach their daughters, but most did not. True, there were also Chumash based texts that incorporated material from the oral law that women throughout Europe studied regularly, but this was not in a formal educational setting.

A CRISIS

Soon, however, a crisis was to develop. In 1869, the Hapsburg Empire promulgated a law that demanded compulsory education for everyone. The general reaction to this was to send the girls to these public schools – but to work something else out for the boys. The boys would either pay a fine to avoid it, or they would go, but would also attend a cheder that accommodated their public school obligation.

Eventually, there was a shidduch crisis of an unprecedented order. The women became highly educated and pursued secular studies even further. They did not particularly like the shidduch choices that their parents presented to them. Young ladies from Torah homes began to leave the Torah way of life. Soon, the problem of educating the masses of girls became quite acute – and the Torah world struggled as to what to do. In Cracow, a cultural center, the decadence surrounding the Jewish community developed an appeal that few could withstand. Some Rabbis suggested establishing girls education in TaNaCh, history, and lashon hakodesh. This was even printed in the Chareidi newspaper entitled “Machzikei HaDas” in Cracow (1902, as cited Seidman’s Sara Schenirer and the Bais Yaakov movement). There was also a group called Agudas Yeshurun that attempted such instruction in 1904, but did not succeed (cited by Rachel Manekin in a Hebrew publication). Rabbi Aharon Marcus was also an early proponent of instructing girls formally.

Eventually, Sara Schenirer’s 1917 Bais Yaakov movement was able to address the problem in a significant manner. The movement was based upon and inspired by what was happening in the west. Rav Shamshon Rephoel’s Hirsch writes in Shemesh Marpeh page 138 that girls should be taught the written law no differently than we teach boys. It had the support of the Belzer Rebbe, the Gerrer Rebbe and the Chofetz Chaim.

But the Bais Yaakov movement was not without its critics. Many Rabbis in Poland and Russia were against establishing such schools within their cities. Many in Galicia were uncomfortable with the innovations of neo-orthodox German Jewry.

This view is echoed in what the holy Klausenberger Rebbe (Shefa Chaim volume on Yom Tov page 319) writes that the custom must be followed not to allow breaches in the way girls are educated. He cites a Yerushalmi to that effect of rather that a sefer be burned then to hand it to a woman. He writes that the status remains the same as before and that our women are no different.

In addressing the previous hesitations toward formally educating women in Torah, the Aruch haShulchan YD 246:19, however, writes that our women are different and that they take everything seriously and ask on everything that they do not understand. The general tone of the Aruch HaShulchan was to be more permissive.

In the last year of his life the Chofetz Chaim gave a michtav bracha to the establishment of the first Bais Yaakov where he writes:

וכל החששים והפקפוקים מאיסור ללמד את בתו תורה אין שום בית מיחוש אין סיבה לחשוש לזה בימינו ואין כאן מקום לבאר באריכות כי לא כדורות ראשונים דורותינו אשר בדורות הקודמים הי’ לכל בית ישראל מסורת אבות ואמהות ללכת בדרך התורה והדת מה שאין כן בעונותינו הרבים בדורותינו אלה ועל כן בכל עוז רוחנו ונפשנו עלינו להשתדל להרבות בתיספר כאלו ולהציל כל מה שיש בידינו להציל

And [regarding] all the concerns and pikpukim concerning the prohibition of teaching one’s daughter Torah there is no place of concern for this in our day. Here is not the place to elaborate upon it at great length but our generation is not like the earlier one’s – where in previous generations each home had traditions from fathers and mothers that ensured that people would walk in the path of Torah and our religion – whereas this is not so, in our sins, in our generation. Rather, with all the strength of our spirit and souls we must endeavor to establish schools such as these (Bais Yaakovs) to save that which we can to save the remnant of Israel..

The agreement for such instruction, however, was limited to instruction in the written Torah – with the exception of Pirkei Avos. Why Pirkei Avos? There was an almost universal tradition that Pirkei Avos was considered mussar and the mussar texts were always permitted to be studied.

RAV SOROTZKIN

Rav Zalman Sorotzkin zt”l (Moznayim LaMishpat Vol. I #42) who lived in Eretz Yisroel, writes as follows:

חינוך הבנות ברוח התורה ע”י לימוד התורה מעורר דאגה ופחד בלב תמימים רק מפני חדושו מפני שלא ראו את אבותיהם נוהגים כן אבל לא כימים הראשונים הימים האחרונים בימים הראשונים התנהגו בתי ישראל ע”פ השולחן ערוך ואפשר הי’ ללמוד בהם את כל התורה מהניסיון וממילא לא הי’ צורך ללמד את בנות ישראל תורה מן הספר אבל עתה בעונותינו הרבים אי אפשר כבר ללמד את התורה בבתי ישראל כי יש בתים אשר אין זכר בהם להרבה מצות ולחוקי התורה ובת ישראל שבאה מהבתים האלה ללמוד בבית ספר דתי הרי היא כמעט כנכרית שבאה להתגייר שמן ההכרח ללמדה תורה וכל מי שאינו מלמד את בתו דעת ה’ ותוכן יהודי מקורי שישמשו כתריס מפני השפעת הרחוב הרי הוא מלמדה ממילא את אותה התפלות הממלאה כעת את חיי הרחוב”

Rav Sorotzkin essentially writes that anyone who does not teach his daughter Daas Hashem is essentially teaching her the “tiflus” that is currently filling our streets.

THE EXTENSION

The extension of the leniency of instruction to Torah sh’be’al peh has appeared at least twice. In has appeared in the writings of Rav Chaim Dovid HaLevi in his Assai Lecha Rav (Vol. II #52) in the dati leumi world as well as in the YU world (Rav Aharon Lichtenstein son in law of Rav Soloveitchik {Sefer HaPnina page 207-209 cited in Shmaitzin #170 p. 173).

לדעתי רצוי וצריך ולא רק אפשר לתת חינוך אינטנסיבי לבנות גם ממקורות תורה שבעל פה לאשה כמחנכת הדור הבא צריך שיהיה מה להעביר ולשם זה היא זקוקה הן לידע הן לזיקה נפשית שתרצה להעביר את המסורת הלאה לשם כך רצוי להעמיק את הלימוד שהרי כך מתעמקת בהחלט הזיקה הנפשית והאכפתיות אי אפשר ללמד על קצה המזלג או שמלמדים או שלא מלמדים

CONCLUSION

It seems to this author that in both much of the dati leumi world as well as in some of the Yeshiva University world – a similar crisis to that of 100 years ago has developed. The Rabbis who permit instructing girls and women in Torah in the oral law – feel that if such instruction is not given – there is a possibility of losing many girls who are intellectually stimulated in other fields.

In the Chareidi world, however, the change in method of instruction was not extended to Gemorah study, neither now – nor one hundred years ago. The The method of instruction that the Bais Yaakov movement has adopted, has, by and large, succeeded in retaining a large majority of its constituents, and it would not be a fulfillment of ais laasos lashem. [The problem is stronger, however, where people choose to further their studies in an environment that does not have a strong group of observant peers.]

The distinction between the different approaches to different communities in contemporary times does not originate with this author. I have heard it cited in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l. There is a caveat, however, in those two other worlds that have adopted it. It should not be motivated by an attempt toward adopting “isms” that are foreign to Judaism, but rather in the form of strengthening Torah observance.

The author can be reached at [email protected]