Wives, women and witchcraft: part 2

The more the maidservants, the more the sexual immorality

In Wives, Women and Witchcraft: Part 1 we discussed a difficult and arguably obsolete component of Hillel’s teaching in the first part of Avot 2:8 regarding wives. We now turn to the second point he makes about women—that an increase of maidservants means an increase of sexual immorality. For convenience the relevant part of the text is reproduced here in bold print):

מַרְבֶּה בָשָׂר מַרְבֶּה רִמָּה, מַרְבֶּה נְכָסִים מַרְבֶּה דְאָגָה, מַרְבֶּה נָשִׁים מַרְבֶּה כְשָׁפִים, מַרְבֶּה שְׁפָחוֹת מַרְבֶּה זִמָּה, מַרְבֶּה עֲבָדִים מַרְבֶּה גָזֵל. מַרְבֶּה תוֹרָה מַרְבֶּה חַיִּים, מַרְבֶּה יְשִׁיבָה מַרְבֶּה חָכְמָה, מַרְבֶּה עֵצָה מַרְבֶּה תְבוּנָה, מַרְבֶּה צְדָקָה מַרְבֶּה שָׁלוֹם...

One who increases flesh increases worms; one who increases possessions increases worry; one who increases wives increases witchcraft; one who increases maidservants increases sexual immorality; one who increases manservants increases theft; one who increases Torah increases life; one who increases study increases wisdom; one who increases counsel increases understanding; one who increases charity increases peace…

Maidservants were clearly part of normal life in the large familial households of Tannaic times and, in English society, remained so until the early years of the twentieth century. Today, however, the maidservant is an archaic job title for a role that is now rarely met outside the context of the television costume drama. In order to appreciate this part of the mishnah, one must either cast oneself back into the days when maidservants flourished or make it relevant to contemporary students of Avot by drawing on some appropriate modern analogy. One such analogy might be made with the cinematic industry, where dominant males have been found to have abused the power and influence that they were able to exert over a continuous stream of attractive and nubile young women who were dependent on their favours.

As in the case of wives and witches above, some major commentators on Avot leave this part of the mishnah with little or no comment (Part 1 mentions rabbis who have let this mishnah pass in its entirety without comment). The Rashbatz (R’ Shimon ben Tzemach, Magen Avot) appears to consider that the shefachot (“maidservants,” from the verb shafach, “pour”) are inherently immoral, forming part of an underclass, as it were, that also comprises menservants. R’ Yisrael Meir Lau (Rav Lau on Avos) follows this view which, I must admit, troubles me. The rampant immorality of the leisured classes in most cultures at most times seems to be an inevitable corollary of power and privilege. Rulers, nobles and even the celibate Catholic clergy kept mistresses and had far better opportunities to indulge themselves than did the household staff who cooked their food, cleaned their homes, repaired their clothes and kept their fires lit. That immorality is the prerogative of those with even limited power is a theme which is movingly depicted in two celebrated masterpieces of nineteenth-century French literature: Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables and Emile Zola’s Germinal.

So what is the source of the immorality which Hillel mentions here?  Is it inherent in maidservants as a class, or only among maidservants of loose morals (as per Gila Ross, Living Beautifully)? Or does it lie in the minds of the men of the household? While there is no basis in fact for the popular myth that men think about sex an average of once every seven seconds, a household to which low-status serving women are tied is inevitably a fertile territory for both predatory male interest and a less sinister process which, starting with mere speculation, may result in activity that goes beyond both moral and legally acceptable boundaries.  Complaints by female au pairs of sexual abuse and harassment are part of the same pattern, as R’ Yaakov Hillel, Eternal Ethics from Sinai, notes.

Let us conclude with a thought-provoking observation by R’ Naftali Herz Wessely, Yayn Levanon. Noting that it is paired with witchcraft not just here but in the Talmud (“sexual immorality and witchcraft consume everything”: Sotah 48a), he contrasts the position of wives with that of maidservants: men are attracted to their wives because the latter are sexually permitted to him, while maidservants are attractive to him precisely because they are not.

Comments and discussions of this post can be found on its Facebook page here.

Wives, women and witchcraft: part 1

The more the women, the more the witchcraft

The place of women in Pirkei Avot, and therefore within the framework of best practice in daily Jewish life, has featured before in Avot Today, when we discussed the extent to which a man might talk to his own, or another’s, wife. We return to this topic with a review of two statements Hillel makes in the first part of Avot 2:8 regarding women (I’ve put the relevant part of the text in bold print):

מַרְבֶּה בָשָׂר מַרְבֶּה רִמָּה, מַרְבֶּה נְכָסִים מַרְבֶּה דְאָגָה, מַרְבֶּה נָשִׁים מַרְבֶּה כְשָׁפִים, מַרְבֶּה שְׁפָחוֹת מַרְבֶּה זִמָּה, מַרְבֶּה עֲבָדִים מַרְבֶּה גָזֵל. מַרְבֶּה תוֹרָה מַרְבֶּה חַיִּים, מַרְבֶּה יְשִׁיבָה מַרְבֶּה חָכְמָה, מַרְבֶּה עֵצָה מַרְבֶּה תְבוּנָה, מַרְבֶּה צְדָקָה מַרְבֶּה שָׁלוֹם...

One who increases flesh increases worms; one who increases possessions increases worry; one who increases wives increases witchcraft; one who increases maidservants increases sexual immorality; one who increases manservants increases theft; one who increases Torah increases life; one who increases study increases wisdom; one who increases counsel increases understanding; one who increases charity increases peace…

In this, the first of two parts of our review of this Mishnah, we deal with wives and witchcraft. The post that follows it deals with maidservants and sexual immorality.

While witchcraft was a matter of serious concern to the Tannaim (see e.g. Sanhedrin 45b, where Shimon HaTzaddik arranging for the death of 80 witches in Ashkelon), this part of the mishnah may seem irrelevant to the contemporary reader, especially since it is directly related to polygamy, a practice that is very much in abeyance in Jewish society (polygamy is technically permitted by the Torah but was banned via a decree of Rabbenu Gershom c. 1000 CE).

Leaving the issue of polygamy aside, and accepting that the practice of witchcraft is not exclusively the prerogative of the female, we have to recognize that in contemporary society the word “witch” is associated principally with women. It is generally deployed as a derogatory term, often suggesting someone who is ugly or deformed, bad tempered, more than averagely assertive or able to get their own way. Additionally, witchcraft is not a concept that greatly affects people’s lives in the twenty-first century.

Apart from that, there are more serious issues of interpretation to contend with. Taken literally, the proportionality expressed in this part of the mishnah appears to imply that there will always be some witchcraft, irrespective of the number of wives. Further, the assessment of “the more the wives, the more the witchcraft” does not appear to depend on the personal qualities of the women concerned, who may be possessed of the highest degree of integrity, morality and respect for God. Finally the Torah (Shemot 22:18) states categorically that a witch should not be allowed to live, but the mishnah does not appear to endorse this requirement.

Some commentators leave us to form our own opinions since they offer no comment about women and witchcraft at all (e.g. Rabbi Chaim Volozhin (Ruach Chaim), the Chida (Chasdei Avot), the Alshich (Yarim Moshe), Rambam and the commentary ascribed to Rashi. Others consider that Hillel was speaking metaphorically. The most popular commentator on Avot, Rabbi Ovadyah MiBartenura, treats the increased number of wives here as the pivotal point in a sort of Rake’s Progress in which a man, over-indulging in food, drink and the good things in life which affluence makes available to him, secures many wives; each in turn needs a maidservant and they collectively require a retinue of manservants to supply their needs. His explanation of the mishnah, under the heading “one who increases wives increases witchcraft,” makes no mention of witches and their craft at all. It is notable that the Tosafot Yom Tov—who comments extensively and often critically on the Bartenura—lets this parable-based explanation go unchallenged.

Another metaphorical and unflattering approach is to understand “witchcraft” as the simple-mindedness of women who foolishly exceed their domestic budget and fail to see the consequences when they pester their husbands for unnecessary purchases (Be’ur Halachah to Mishnah Berurah 529 at ‘Ve’al yetzamtzem behotza’at Yom Tov’, cited in Rabbis Baruch and Amos Shulem, Avot uVanim al Pirkei Avot). If this was ever the case—which may be doubted outside the realms of popular non-Jewish fiction of bygone times—there is no evidence that the 21^st century Jewish working wife who shoulders her share of domestic responsibility even comes close to resembling this insulting and offensive stereotype.

A further approach is to vest this mishnah with the meaning that, from the point of view of a husband, the experience of amassing wives feels like an accumulation of witches. A man with many wives may absolutely fail to understand the nature of their communications with one another, their shared interests and their rivalries, their adoption of a scale of priorities at odds with his own and their preoccupation with matters in which he had neither interest nor expertise. Out of his depth in the social milieu of his harem and unable to control collectively those over whom he wields dominance one-to-one, he might well consider himself the victim of powers that lay beyond his understanding—this being in effect a sort of witchcraft.

Variations on the theme of this explanation can be found in the notion that wives, competing for the attention and the affection of the same husband, would resort to the services of witches in order to promote their cause (Machzor Vitry; Rabbenu Yonah) or to make themselves more appealing (Rabbi Avraham Azulai), or that the husband, broken in mind and exhausted in body by a surfeit of sex (Tiferet Yisrael (Yachin); Rabbi David Sperber, Michtam leDavid), would in his desperation seek relief by consulting the occult and illicit forces of the Ov or the Yidoni (Devarim 18:11. Rashi explains there that the Ov is a sort of ventriloquist who projects his voice through his armpit, while the Yidoni speaks through a bone that he places in his mouth. Both are sorcerers, whom it is prohibited to consult).

This approach can be adopted prospectively by the man who has yet to take on extra wives. Thus Rabbi Yechezkel Sarno (Daliyot Yechezkel, cited in Mishel Avot) sees this Mishnah as a sort of checklist for a man who is advancing through various stages in his life. At the point at which he considers whether to increase the number of his wives, that is the moment for him to imagine himself increasing not wives but witches, this being a prophylactic against subjecting himself to the force of their irresistibly seductive powers.

On a historical note, the Tanach has not shirked from showing the consequences of taking more than one wife, even where the husband concerned is a man of the highest integrity and commitment to serving God. The domestic relationships that are a consequence of Jacob marrying sororal co-wives Rachel and Leah is clearly strained, and King Solomon’s failure to observe the injunction placed upon a king to limit the number of his wives led ultimately to the royal family practicing idol worship and to national disaster.

Where then does this leave us? Among modern commentators there is some reluctance to get tackle this issue.  R’ Dan Roth (Relevance: Pirkei Avos for the Twenty-First Century), Samson Krupnick and Morris Mandel (Torah Dynamics) and R’ Yisroel Miller (The Wisdom of Avos) omit this mishnah in its entirety. R’ Irving Greenberg (Sage Advice) does mention the Mishnah but says nothing about wives and witches.

Others do discuss it but tread warily. R’ Reuven Bulka (Chapters of the Sages), having mentioned the risk of internecine strife between multiple wives, comments: “The quality of one true love relationship is more meaningful and lasting than ten superficial relationships”. Gila Ross discusses all the situations Hillel cites, using the present tense, while mentioning wives-and-witches in the past tense—a gentle suggestion that the Tanna’s words are of purely historical interest.

R’ Yaakov Hillel (Eternal Ethics from Sinai), seizes the opportunity this mishnah offers him to embark in a lengthy discussion of some key issues. He writes of the need for moderation in all things, the priority of the spiritual over the physical and the dangers of excessive wealth and the need to regard life as more than merely a vehicle for physical pleasure: he also cautions that a man who cannot satisfy his lusts will be buried by them. Ultimately, however, he endorses the 500-year old metaphor of the Bartenura since, taken as a whole, it comes closest to addressing the need of our times.

I’d be curious to know what readers think. Please share your thoughts with us.

Comments and discussions on this post are on its Facebook page here.

Women -- then and now

Students of Pirkei Avot today are often faced with the challenge of explaining—or explaining away—Yose ben Yohanan Ish Yerushalayim’s teaching at Avot 1:5. Is it a massive slap in the face for women, or is it merely misunderstood? The third part of this mishnah reads:

וְאַל תַּרְבֶּה שִׂיחָה עִם הָאִשָּׁה, בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ אָמְרוּ, קַל וָחֹֽמֶר בְּאֵֽשֶׁת חֲבֵרוֹ… מִכַּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: כָּל הַמַּרְבֶּה שִׂיחָה עִם הָאִשָּׁה, גּוֹרֵם רָעָה לְעַצְמוֹ, .וּבוֹטֵל מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וְסוֹפוֹ יוֹרֵשׁ גֵּיהִנֹּם

…and do not engage in excessive conversation with a woman. They said this regarding one's own wife—how much more so regarding the wife of one’s friend. The sages therefore said: one who excessively converses with a woman causes evil to himself, neglects Torah and ultimately inherits Gehinnom.

The earliest explanations of this guidance are clear: for men in the world of Torah learning, women are a problem. Avot deRabbi Natan (7:3) warns against coming home from the house of study with complaints that he has not been treated with respect or that he has had a dispute with his chavruta, his study partner: by doing so he merely debases himself and others. His wife, thinking less of him, will share their private conversation with others. This view of the mishnah is adopted by the commentary attributed to Rashi, who adds da’atan shel nashim kalah (“women’s understanding is small”) and spells out that conversing with the wife of one’s friend is problematic because of hachashad (“the suspicion”), without feeling the need to spell out its parameters.

The Bartenura rejects the theory that excessive conversation with one’s wife is only limited to times when she is niddah and not sexually available to him. Instead, he focuses on chit-chat between husband and wife, for which one is accountable when facing judgement. He then offers a wider version of the explanation of Avot deRabbi Natan, applying it not just the husband who returns from the study house but to wherever he may have come home from.

Rambam regards this teaching as revolving around talk of sex, since that is the content of most conversation between men and women. Rabbenu Yonah is more concerned here with thoughts of sex, though he too cites the Avot deRabbi Natan and Rashi. He adds that it is impossible to have Torah thoughts when conversing with a woman and that, if one’s yetzer hara is getting the better of him, chatting with a woman is a good way to establish a time and place for improper conduct.

Contemporary writers on Avot take quite a different approach. Indeed, R’ Dan Roth (Relevance: Pirkei Avos for the Twenty-First Century, 2007) passes over this mishnah completely.

For R’ Abraham J. Twerski (Visions of the Fathers, 1999) the task of the husband is to avoid what he calls “excessive” talk. This is a broad category of speech that includes all talk that is unnecessary, unproductive or damaging, with nothing to justify it. This category includes complaints or criticisms of one’s wife where the subject of the complaint is in the past and cannot be rectified,

R’ Yisroel Miller (The Wisdom of Avos, 2022) meets the mishnah head-on, going right back to the Avot deRabbi Natan, concluding that “the mishnah is warning against conversing excessively with one’s own wife because it may cause her to lose respect for him”. R’ Miller then uses it as a springboard for a wider message—one that is not based on the original words at all: “conversation between men and women is difficult because men and women use words and process information in very different ways”. Given the possibility of sexual attraction between man and woman, “every conversation between men and women is a minefield waiting to explode”.

R' Anthony Manning (Poliakoff and Manning, Reclaiming Dignity, 2023) quotes the teaching of Yose ben Yochanan but does not subject it to close textual analysis. Rather, he explains in general terms that: “The Rabbis warned about certain modes of social interaction that can lead us into dangerous situations. Idle banter between men and women in certain settings can become sexually suggestive, opening up possibilities for seductions and potentially destructive relationships”.  To be fair, this is not a pirush on Avot, so it would be unfair to expect anything further on this mishnah.

Another recent publication, this time by Gila Ross (Living Beautifully, 2023), is based on Avot but focuses more on the aspirational side of the tractate, more on what sort of life we should aim to live rather on what the words of the Tannaim mean. She writes: “Of course, any talk that is necessary, including anything that creates an emotional bond between a husband and a wife, is not only permitted but encouraged”. She continues: “More specifically, not conversing excessively with a woman is a reminder to us that life is precious and limited. We are souls, and we are here for a higher purpose…” , Citing R’ Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, she adds:”[A] husband who has respect for his wife won’t just give her idle chatter but will engage in meaningful talk”.

Not all modern pirushim stray from the blunt message of the classic commentators. R’ Yaakov Hillel (Eternal Ethics From Sinai, vol.1, 2021) does not mince his words. While his discussion of male-female relationships may be far from contemporary social norms, he maintains a hard line that the Tannaim would likely have recognized, cautioning against spiritual decline and the sin of wasting semen. His strict approach would however commend itself to many a wife whose husband, “in learning”, is struggling with a meagre income and a large family. He writes: “When a woman needs her husband’s encouragement or help, it is a mitzvah to provide it”. After mentioning the special needs of such wives he adds: “Everyone is different. It takes a great deal of wisdom to correctly gauge and meet another party’s needs, yet not err in the opposite direction. A husband’s obligations to his wife as outlined in the marriage contract are based on her feelings, which may not necessarily be identical to his”.

In sum, modern writings on Avot reflect in general a drift away from the strict, somewhat austere and sometimes patronizing position of the classical commentators—but they do affirm, both in positive and negative terms, the principles upon which this mishnah is founded.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook click here. 

A rabbi by any other title?

Shortly before the end of this year’s festive season our friend and greatly appreciated commentator Claude Tusk sent Avot Today this devar Torah for Simchat Torah, the celebration of both the conclusion of our Torah readings and their immediate recommencement. This short, timely and well-delivered devar Torah is based on Pirkei Avot, in particular on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s much-debated contention that it is not the study of Torah which is the main thing, but the performance of its precepts (Avot 1:17).

This devar Torah first cites the opinion of R’ Kalonymus Kalman Shapira that a person who learns Torah but does not implement it is like a bookshelf: he holds much knowledge but is judged to be no more than a piece of wood. R’ Nosson Tzvi Finkel is also quoted: he explains that the value of Torah is inseparable from its active implementation since the role of Torah is to enable one to transform oneself into a different, improved person—and it is only by putting one’s Torah learning into action that one properly internalises it.

Aside from the content of the devar Torah, the issue I want to discuss, one on which I suspect many readers may wish to comment, is that its author, one Rabbi Avi Strausberg, turns out to be a woman.

As a traditional orthodox Jew I am most comfortable with the position that “rabbi” is a title and a status that is conferred upon the male of the species. On the other hand I am happy to attend shiurim given by women; I buy and read works of Jewish scholarship written by women and have greatly benefited from their learning. I respect them both as fellow human beings and as Jewish leaders and scholars in their own right—but for me, on a personal basis, the title “rabbi” refers to a man.

Can I, should I, refer to Avi Strausberg as “Rabbi” in this post? What guidance does Avot give me?

I actually first encountered this issue when I was Registrar of the London Beth Din. I had to write a letter to a (male) minister of a provincial English community who styled himself “rabbi”, even though he did not hold semichah from any recognised authority. I was asked to write to him, with the full authority of the Beth Din, to inform him that he was not recognised as a rabbi and must not refer to himself as such. I asked Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu, who was Rosh Beth Din at the time and someone whose orthodox credentials were beyond challenge, how I should address the letter and the envelope in which the letter was to be delivered to him.

The Dayan’s answer came instantly and without equivocation. I was to address this person as “Rabbi” both in my letter and on the envelope containing it. He explained: as a matter of kavod, of the respect that any human is required to show to another, one should always give a person the title that he (or she) uses for him- or herself. To do otherwise would be frankly rude and certainly not in keeping with the need to show kavod to others. The source for this is Ben Zoma’s teaching at Avot 4:1: “Who is respected? The person who respects others…”.  I have followed this guidance ever since.

One might add that a letter to someone who calls themselves “Rabbi” which is addressed to “Mr”, “Miss”, “Mrs”, “Ms” or whatever might generate personal embarrassment if that letter is seen and read by others—and embarrassing others in public should also be avoided (see R’ Elazar HaModa’i at Avot 3:15).

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

"How to handle a woman" -- or oneself?

Last Sunday Beit Knesset Hanassi hosted the second of its three “meet and greet” sessions at which one of the triumvirate of candidates for a rabbinical vacancy had the chance to field questions from the synagogue’s members. In the course of this informative and entertaining session one questioner asked the candidate for his opinion on the presence of women on synagogue management boards and committees.

The answer started off, as expected, with the candidate explaining that there were female representatives on the board of his synagogue and that he had never found any difficulty in working with them. He then added something quite unexpected: “But I never call or message women board members after 10 pm”. In his view the initiation of late-night conversations with women other than his own wife was inappropriate and that it was proper to draw an arbitrary time-line beyond which he would not contact them.

This rabbi’s best practice reflects an application of two maxims of Pirkei Avot working in tandem. First, there is the principle of al tirbeh sichah im ha’ishah… (“don’t chat excessively with a woman…”: Avot 1:5 per Yose ben Yochanan Ish Yerushalayim). At its best, this guidance governs a married man’s relationships with his wife (i.e. don’t insult her intelligence by confining conversation to mere trivia) and with other people’s wives (i.e. avoid suggestive chat-up lines and inappropriate expressions of interest).

The second principle comes at the very beginning of the tractate at Avot 1:1, where the Men of the Great Assembly teach that one should build a fence around the Torah. There is no rule in the written or oral Torah that prohibits calling or texting a woman who is not one’s wife after 10 pm.

By the very nature of their role, communal rabbis deal with women far more frequently than those rabbis who learn and teach Torah within the environment of the yeshivah or Kollel. These dealings can be quite intense, may go on for a long time and, in the case of counselling, they may involve matters of a personal and emotionally powerful nature.  Bearing this in mind, an arbitrary cut-off point for communication between male rabbis and female congregants has much to commend it.

Rabbis are neither more nor less human than the rest of us, but they are different in that we expect them to behave in accordance with halachah and propriety at all times. Fortunately they generally do. However, from my own time as a senior administrator of the Court of the Chief Rabbi in the early days of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks’ tenure, I recall with sadness a small number of cases in which there was no self-imposed barrier, where an initially sincere and well-meaning relationship between rabbi and congregant resulted both in the termination of a marriage and in damage to a career.

The Ages of Man -- and Woman?

The following post, which was commissioned for the Judaism Reclaimed Facebook Group, has been developed from two earlier posts (here and here) on this weblog.

The Torah reading for parashat Chayei Sarah commences with a recitation that the life of matriarch Sarah was “a hundred years and twenty years and seven years”. Regarding this unusual mode of expressing the number 127, Rashi famously cites a midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 58:1) to teach that Sarah was as sinless at 100 as she was when she was 20 [the age at which one becomes liable for heavenly punishment], and as beautiful at 20 as she was at 7. Alternatively, she was as beautiful at 100 as she was at 20, and as sinless at 20 as she was at 7 (according to Shadal, this is the original version of Rashi’s source). Either way, we can conclude that Sarah lived a long life, a life in which she remained constant in her virtue and in the quality of her personal appearance.

On the subject of age and advancing years, Pirkei Avot (5:25) has much to say. In particular, it features a lifestyle chronology that begins with learning the written Torah at five and concludes with a person being effectively “out of it” by the time he reaches 100. This Mishnah is plainly addressed to ordinary people and does not describe the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs, whose pre-Torah lives were governed by factors that applied to them but not to us. In Sarah’s case, of the three ages cited in the opening of this week’s parashah, only two of them—20 and 100—are found in the Avot list. While 100 is the age at which one ceases to count for anything, Jewish tradition makes it clear that Sarah continued to take an active part in life. Likewise 20 is the age at which one goes to work (opinions vary as to whether this means making a living or going out to learn Torah), but we do not find that Sarah had a day job at that or any other age. The only other age we learn of in Sarah’s biblical biography is 90, this being the mishnaic age at which physical weakness makes itself manifest—but it is also the point at which Sarah conceives Isaac (Bereshit 17:17).

The “ages of man” Mishnah raises delicate issues in contemporary Jewish thought, since it appears to be addressed only to men. There are at least several possible views one can take. These include the following:

• Women are excluded from the equation because this Mishnah is exclusively a men-for-men teaching;
• Women are not mentioned in this Mishnah because there is no need of a separate list. One only needs to make the necessary changes as one goes along (e.g. substituting 12 for 13 as the age of being bound by mitzvot and deleting 18 as the age for getting married, since this is a men’s mitzvah only);
• There is no need for a women’s list, or it is impossible to create one, since the biological, familial and social factors that govern the course of a woman’s life are more varied and uncertain than those of men;
• The mishnah does not actually address men in general, because it maps out an ideal course only for those who seek a life of Torah study in which everything else is purely incidental. Since it applies so narrowly and embraces only a minority of males, it is not gender-specific and there is no need to consider how, or to what extent, it applies to women

We live in a world in which women’s secular education and Torah study are facts on the ground and it is now nearly 90 years since the death of another Sarah—Sarah Schenirer—who lifted women’s education to a new and hitherto unprecedented level from which it has continued to rise. While classical and modern commentators generally avoid any mention of the absence of a “women’s list”, Judaism Reclaimed (chap. 41) explores the extent to which the biblical precedent of Devorah, and the halachic mechanism which some authorities understand it to have endorsed, can be utilised in the modern era of more widespread and substantial Jewish education for women. It would be good to hear from leading Torah scholars and thinkers as to whether there should be a parallel set of guidelines for women and, if so, as to what it might contain.

Nothing to do with real women after all?

The third and final part of Avot 1:5 contains one of the more troublesome statements for modern-day readers of Avot, when Yose ben Yochanan Ish Yerushalayim counsels his pupils not to have too much sichah (idle chatter) with women, and particularly with other men's wives. There are many apologists for this teaching, though some commentators sound a little condescending in their justifications of this statement.

It is however possible to explain this part of the Mishnah in a completely different way, one that has nothing to do with women and with men’s attitudes to women. The explanation runs like this. “Woman” in this context does not refer to female human beings. Rather, it is a metaphor for the yetzer hara, the seductive evil inclination that we all possess, men and women alike. It is well known that humans cannot exist, procreate and develop their own character if they have no yetzer hara at all, or if they have one but pay no attention to it—but they should not engage overmuch with it.

Taking the metaphor further, the chachamim note that one should not engage in too much sichah with “one’s friend’s wife” either. This is because many socially destructive activities, of which adultery is the most obvious example, require the cooperation of one’s own yetzer hara with someone else’s.  Take care, therefore, not to let your evil inclination engage with the evil inclination of your friend.

Is this explanation implausible and far-fetched? One can make out a case for “woman” being a metaphor for the evil inclination, a symbol of seduction, persuasion and guile that will ensnare a good person of either gender and lead him or her off the desired path in circumstances in which brute force is not available or effective. Such a use of “woman” as a metaphor for the yetzer hara has a counterpart in the Book of Proverbs, where the temptation to abandon one’s Judaism and follow idol worship is described as “a strange woman, a foreign woman” (Proverbs 2:16-17, per Rashi, who makes the same association at 6:24), a woman who forgets the husband of her former days. The same alien woman is also depicted as “the lusting soul” whose influence runs counter to a person’s intellect (Proverbs 7:5, per Gersonides). Later, the “foolish woman” says to passers-by who are devoid of understanding: “stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten secretly is more pleasing” (Proverbs 9:13-17, this being generally taken as an allusion to the attractions of adultery). 

The question facing us today is whether we can stretch the metaphor further and generalize this sort of use of the word “woman” into an indication of every direction in which the evil inclination can pull a person. If we do, there is at least some precedent in the Cairo Geniza, where the first folio of a midrashic text (Document T-S e4.10) deals with metaphorical interpretations of the theme of the ‘wife’ in the Torah based on a treatment of the “good woman” as the good inclination and the “evil woman” is the yetzer hara.