[Avodah] She-lo Asani Isha

[Chana Luntz]

> > I wrote:
> >> "But I can see no way that the level of obligation in commandments
> >> of a woman can be said to be greater than that of a (male) eved... "

RAF replied:
> >I don't understand your problem. An Eved is worse than an Isha
> > because it lacks the Kedushat Yisrael of a Jew!! An eved is forbidden to
> > marry a Jewess for this reason

And RJF added

> Also see Horiyot 13a -- an eved was bchlal arur.

Actually, this gemora specifically contradicts what RAF said above, ie it
notes that the reason one might have thought that a freed eved should
precede a ger is because an eved gadal imanu b'kedusha.

Concerning curses - indeed, women are also considered cursed (Eruvin 100b) -
but I agree the curse of a eved is probably regarded as more severe. That
means that if in fact your rationale for including and ordering the brochos
in birchas hashachar is based on a man giving thanks for not having been
cursed, then eved followed by isha would probably be correct.  It would also
be possible to read this into the rationale of the gemora in Menachos.  But
that is not what RAF is arguing.  He is arguing that the reason for the
bracha in birchas hashachar is because of the greater obligation in mitzvos
that a man has, not because he has not been cursed.

Similarly with RAF's most recent comment:

> Regarding My comments to Chana Luntz Sasoon that an eved is considered
> much lower than a woman because he is not only patur from MASh"G,
> but lacks kedushat Yirael and cannot marry a Jewess - Kivanti le-da'at
> haAbudarham, Birkhot haShahar. He adds that an Eved also lack Zekhut
> Avot and lack ne'emanut

A woman also lacks ne'emanut in many circumstances, although perhaps less
than an eved, so again, that could be a logical reason for a man to make a
bracha, first shelo asani eved, and then shelo asani isha (thanking for
having more ne'amanut than an eved and even than an isha).  Zechut Avot is
more tricky, because (a) the man making it could just as easily be a ger, in
which case if anything his zechut avot would be less, and (b) zechut avot is
not a reason to distinguish a man from a woman.  It therefore does not fit
so well with the gemora in Menachos, if you understand it to be advocating
reversing the order, which agrees to an equation between a woman and an eved
vis a vis a man, but with the situation for the eved being more dire. 

I am not saying there cannot be many reasons why an eved is considered a
worse state than that of an isha.  But levels of obligations vis a vis the
commandments is not one of them.  That is why it is difficult to understand
the maskana of the gemora in Menachos as talking about levels of obligations
and not something else (at least without switching the order).  Given that
we pasken like the Bavli over the Yerushalmi (and Tosephta), but we do
switch the order that makes levels of obligations vis a vis the commandments
difficult as the reason for the brachos in our siddur, contrary to what RAF
is arguing.


Regards

Chana