According to Judith Plaskow, Jewish women live with a fundamental paradox. When they look to Jewish texts and traditions, they often find themselves absent and excluded, and yet they feel and experience themselves to be part of the covenantal community. Plaskow argues that Jewish history and, indeed, Torah itself, in all its manifestations, must be reconceived and reshaped to inject women’s viewpoints and visions into the Jewish communal consciousness. Reprinted with permission from
Standing Again At Sinai
Entry into the covenant at Sinai is the root experience of Judaism, the central event that established the Jewish people.
Given the importance of this event, there can be no verse in the Torah more disturbing to the feminist than Moses’ warning to his people in Exodus 19:15, “Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman.” For here, at the very moment that the Jewish people stands at Sinai ready to receive the covenant‑-not now the covenant with individual patriarchs but with the people as a whole‑-at the very moment when Israel stands trembling waiting for God’s presence to descend upon the mountain, Moses addresses the community only as men.
The Profound Injustice of Torah Itself
The specific issue at stake is ritual impurity: An emission of semen renders both a man and his female partner temporarily unfit to approach the sacred (Leviticus 15:16‑18). But Moses does not say, “Men and women do not go near each other.”
At the central moment of Jewish history, women are invisible. Whether they too stood there trembling in fear and expectation, what they heard when the men heard these words of Moses, we do not know. It was not their experience that interested the chronicler or that informed and shaped the Torah.
Moses’ admonition can be seen as a paradigm of what I have called “the profound injustice of Torah itself.” In this passage, the Otherness of women finds its way into the very center of Jewish experience. And although the verse hardly can be blamed for women’s situation, it sets forth a pattern recapitulated again and again in Jewish sources.
Women’s invisibility at the moment of entry into the covenant is reflected in the content of the covenant which, in both grammar and substance, addresses the community as male heads of household. It is perpetuated by the later tradition, which in its comments and codifications takes women as objects of concern or legislation but rarely sees them as shapers of tradition and actors in their own lives.
It is not just a historical injustice that is at stake in this verse, however. There is another dimension to the problem of the Sinai passage without which it is impossible to understand the task of Jewish feminism today. Were this passage simply the record of a historical event long in the past, the exclusion of women at this critical juncture would be troubling, but also comprehensible for its time. The Torah is not just history, however, but also living memory.
The Torah reading, as a central part of the Sabbath and holiday liturgy, calls to mind and recreates the past for succeeding generations. When the story of Sinai is recited as part of the annual cycle of Torah readings and again as a special reading for Shavuot, women each time hear ourselves thrust aside anew, eavesdropping on a conversation among men and between men and God. As Rachel Adler puts it, “Because the text has excluded her, she is excluded again in this yearly re‑enactment and will be excluded over and over, year by year, every time she rises to hear the covenant read.”
If the covenant is a covenant with all generations (Deuteronomy 29:13ff), then its reappropriation also involves the continual reappropriation of women’s marginality.
Are Women Jews?
This passage in Exodus is one of the places in the Tanakh [the Bible] where women’s silence is so deeply charged, so overwhelming, that it can provoke a crisis for the Jewish feminist. As Rachel Adler says, “We are being invited by Jewish men to re‑covenant, to forge a covenant which will address the inequalities of women’s position in Judaism, but we ask ourselves, ‘Have we ever had a covenant in the first place? Are women Jews?'”
This is a question asked at the edge of a deep abyss. How can we ever hope to fill the silence that shrouds Jewish women’s past? If women are invisible from the first moment of Jewish history, can we hope to become visible now? How many of us will fight for years to change the institutions in which we find ourselves only to achieve token victories? Perhaps we should put our energy elsewhere, into the creation of new communities where we can be fully present and where our struggles will not come up against walls as old as our beginnings.
Yet urgent and troubling as these questions are, there is a tension between them and the reality of the Jewish woman who poses them. The questions emerge out of a contradiction between the holes in the text and the felt experience of many Jewish women. For if Moses’ words come as a shock and affront, it is because women have always known or assumed our presence at Sinai; the passage is painful because it seems to deny what we have always taken for granted. Of course we were at Sinai; how is it then that the text could imply we were not there?
The Rabbis Were Troubled, Too
It is not only we who ask these questions. The rabbis too seem to have been disturbed at the implication of women’s absence from Sinai and found a way to read women’s presence into the text.
As Rashi [11th-century Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki] understood Exodus 19:3‑‑”Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the children of Israel”‑‑”the house of Jacob” refers to the women and “the children of Israel” refers to the men. The Talmud interprets Exodus 19:15 (“Do not go near a woman”) to mean that women can purify themselves on the third day after there is no longer any chance of their having a discharge of live sperm.
Apparently, women’s absence was unthinkable to the rabbis, and this despite the fact that in their own work they continually reenact that absence. How much more then should it be unthinkable to us who know we are present today even in the midst of communities that continue to deny us? The contradiction between the Torah text and our experience is crucial; for, construed a certain way, it is a potential bridge to a new relationship with the tradition.
Recreating History, Reshaping Torah
To accept our absence from Sinai would be to allow the male text to define us and our connection to Judaism. To stand on the ground of our experience, on the other hand, to start with the certainty of our membership in our own people is to be forced to re‑member and recreate its history, to reshape Torah. It is to move from anger at the tradition, through anger to empowerment. It is to begin the journey toward the creation of a feminist Judaism.
Jewish feminists, in other words, must reclaim Torah as our own. We must render visible the presence, experience, and deeds of women erased in traditional sources. We must tell the stories of women’s encounters with God and capture the texture of their religious experience. We must expand the notion of Torah to encompass not just the five books of Moses and traditional Jewish learning, but women’s words, teachings, and actions hitherto unseen.
To expand Torah, we must reconstruct Jewish history to include the history of women, and in doing so alter the shape of Jewish memory.
Pronounced: TALL-mud, Origin: Hebrew, the set of teachings and commentaries on the Torah that form the basis for Jewish law. Comprised of the Mishnah and the Gemara, it contains the opinions of thousands of rabbis from different periods in Jewish history.
Pronunced: TORE-uh, Origin: Hebrew, the Five Books of Moses.