[Avodah] shelo asani isha

[Esther and Aryeh Frimer]

Dear R. YGB
    I would like to make it clear that there is no doubt as to the authenticity of the text of the benediction she-lo asani isha─since it appears thrice in Rabbinic literature: in the Tosefta, the Talmud Bavli and the Yerushalmi.[1] Both the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi make it clear that the benediction is related strictly to men’s greater obligation in commandments. As is well known, women are generally freed from mitsvot asei she-ha-zeman gramman (time-determined positive commandments), which include, inter alia: sukka, lulav, shofar, tefillin and tsitsit.[2] Reams have been written to explain the import of these benedictions and why they are in the negative.[3] I would like, however, to cite the comments of R. Reuven Margaliyyot,[4] which I personally find very satisfying.
…A woman is not punished if she does not fulfill time-determined positive commandments, and her share in the World to Come is like that of a man. Hence, there might well be room for a male Jew to think that it might have been better had he been born a woman, for then he would have been freed from the yoke of these commandments. Hence, [the Rabbis] established that each male should make a daily declaration that these mitsvot are not a burden. 

A similar approach appears in the writings of the 18th Century Talmudist R. Samuel Eidels (Maharsha) who writes:[5] 

…[A male makes this benediction because the role] of a man and a woman are each lenient on the one hand and stringent on the other. For if they are righteous, the reward of the male is greater, because he is commanded in more mitsvot than a woman. However, if they are not righteous, the man's punishment is greater than a woman's.

These scholars note that one who has greater obligation has greater potential for reward, but also for greater possible punishment should he or she not do as required. Thus, a man who doesn’t put on tefillin or sit in the Sukka is punished for bittul aseh─for not fulfilling the positive commandment he was bidden to obey. Hence, the Rabbis ordained that each day, each of us acknowledge that, mutatis mutandis, the Creator could have made us a non-Jew, or a slave, or a woman with fewer obligations, but also fewer risks. Yet, the Almighty chose not to. By reciting the daily identity berakhot “sheLo asani goy; sheLo asani aved; sheLo asani isha” each of us accepts upon ourselves the spiritual/religious role that we have been given. The “she-lo” is to be understood as “Who has not,” a sober acknowledgement and acceptance of a spiritual role, not a celebrative “because He has not.” 

            R. Nissim Alpert suggests a insightful rationale as to why these berakhot are formulated in the negative. Hazal wanted to communicate to us that the Creator only gives us the opportunity - He defines who we are not; it is up to us to define who we are and maximize our positive potential.[6] Interestingly, the same idea appears in the writings of 19th century R. Zadok haKohen.[7]

And the reason one should not recite "who has made me an Israelite" is that man functions with freedom of choice, and one can be called an Israelite only if he chooses properly. And who can be sure that he/she will chose correctly? Hence, we can only recite the benedictions "who has not made me a non-Jew or a slave." But, nevertheless, one has the choice to chose [whether to do these mitsvot] because he is not a non-Jew or a slave. The same is true for "who has not made me a woman" – it is in his choice to fulfill or not fulfill those mitsvot that stem from men's greater mitsva obligation.

Many have waved this all off as “apologetics”.  I guess one man’s apologetics is another’s honest explanation. The only authoritative guideline is the one given us by the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi─namely, that this bendiction relates to the fewer number of specific mitsvot in which women are obligated. Prof. Sperber has chosen to interpret the berakha in a way which creates a problem and casts aspersions on Hazal. To my mind, it is far better to understand it so no problem begins! 

In light of all the above, your response: "R' Meir means that a person to whom these berachos are relevant must recite the relevant ones." Is exactly right!  Hence,  the following statement is quite a stretch (dahuk beYoter).

"Relevance for this kind of brachah includes feeling the sense of hoda'ah it implies."  The Berakhot are not Triumphal thanks - more like the acknowledgement of Barukh Dayan haEmet!

    beKhavod Rav
            Aryeh


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]. B.T. Menahot 43b; J.T. Berakhot 9:1; and Tosefta Berakhot 6:18; 

[2]. See: Mishna Kiddushin 1:7; Tosefta Kiddushin 1:10; Talmud Kiddushin 29a, and Kiddushin 33b and ff. 

[3]. “Birkot haShahar,” Encyclopedia Talmudit, IV, p. 371ff; Joseph Tabory, “The Benediction of Self-Identity and The Changing Status of Women and of Orthodoxy,” Kenishta, 1 (2001), pp. 107-138.

[4]. R. Reuven Margaliot, Nitsotsei Or, Menahot 43b, s.v. Rabbi Meir Omer. 

[5]. R. Samuel Eliezer Eidels, Maharsha Hiddushei Aggadot, Menahot 43b. See also Chabakuk Elisha, “Shelo Asani Isha,” A Simple Jew Blog, September 12, 2008, available online at: http://tinyurl.com/343e2g5.

[6]. R. Joel Rich, personal communication (January 2011); see also comments to http://tinyurl.com/6l3ojup. 

[7]. R. Zaddok haKohen Rabinowitz of Lublin, Pri Tsaddik, vaYikra, Parashat Emor, sec. 7, s.v. “veAhar kakh.” 


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer 
  To: Esther and Aryeh Frimer 
  Cc: avodah at lists.aishdas.org 
  Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 8:56 AM
  Subject: Re: shelo asani isha


  The adam gives it away: A woman is included in adam, yet cannot recite one of these berachos. A slave is included in adam, yet cannot recite one of these berachos. A ger tzedek is included in adam, yet cannot recite one of these berachos. R' Meir means that a person to whom these berachos are relevant must recite the relevant ones. Relevance for this kind of brachah includes feeling the sense of hoda'ah it implies.

  KT,
  YGB

  On 8/21/2011 12:02 AM, Esther and Aryeh Frimer wrote: 
        R. Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer writes (Aug 18th 2011): "In theory, I have no problem with the elimination of Shelo asani ishah. It is a birchas hodo'oh, if you don't feel thankful, don't say it."  

        However, how do you resolve the Talmud's statement in Menahot 43b: "Haya Rabbi Meir omer (Rabbi Meir was wont to say): Hayav adam levarekh shalosh berakhot bekhol yom (One is obligated to recite three benedictions daily) ... shelo asani isha." 



    --------------------------------
    Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer
    Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
    Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
    E-mail (office): Aryeh.Frimer at biu.ac.il or FrimeA at biu.ac.il


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110821/78ebd511/attachment-0002.htm>