The Torah and... the Bearded Lady?

Before I started posting my weekly Dvar Torah to this blog, 
I wrote this article entitled Bald, Pure, and Loving It! 
This is the natural follow-up to that entry

Parshat Tazria

by Rabbi Avi Billet

I created a program several years ago, called ParshaDrama, in which I go to a school and present the weekly Torah portion to different grades through a combination of storytelling and dramatics – playing the roles of the various characters, while sometimes calling up some students to assist when there are multiple characters on the Torah’s storyline.

For Tazria, I typically call up volunteers in order to “point out” the kinds of blemishes that are described in the parsha, accompanied by an explanation of the process the person will now have to endure in order to be deemed “tahor” again.

Since I mostly deal with younger grades, I am often in a co-ed school with boys and girls together. 

Last week, immediately after presenting the parsha about the dedication of the Mishkan and the role of Aharon and his sons, including the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, one girl, who is in first or second-grade, asked me why I don’t include girls in the story. After accepting her critique, I told her I am unaware of Aharon having daughters. And I reminded her (with a smile… I was very nice) there are many “girls” in the stories in Bereshit, even if they are not as prominent as the “boys.”

It’s OK – I pick the girl volunteers to demonstrate many of the tzara’at afflictions of our Parsha, or for a unisex discussion about law in Mishpatim, as well as anytime I specifically need someone with a beard (e.g. some Kohen situations in Parshat Emor), because many of the girls are adept at bringing their ponytails round to front and tying them under their chins, aside from the female roles they play. It is an interesting point of note that the only person recorded by the Torah to have been afflicted with tzara’at is a woman (Miriam, in Bamidbar 13). It does not follow that tzara’at is a women’s disease any more than a men’s disease, as we encounter other “metzo’ra’im” (tzara’at inflicted individuals) in the rest of the Bible who are men as well.

Our parsha this week begins talking about the status of a woman who “has seed” and gives birth to a boy, or who gives birth to a girl. And while the parsha talks primarily about the generic “Adam” (human – male or female) who gets tzara’at, the Torah specifically mentions “a man or a woman” who have a “nega” (mark) on the head or on the beard. (13:29)

What? Is the Torah addressing the circus and the bearded lady (some interesting ladies have embraced their genetic disorder that causes facial hair to grow – amazing what you can find on Google)?

Rashi explains this strange language to mean that the Torah is distinguishing between tzara’at that occurs on hairy spots versus tzara’at that appears on skin where hair does not grow. Perhaps, on “the head” refers to women, who do not usually go bald, while on “the beard” refers to men, who usually (certainly in Biblical times) have facial hair. “The head” could refer to a bald spot (for men who suffer from hair loss) and “the beard” spot could refer to women who are usually naturally clean shaven.

Chizkuni simply says the head is speaking of the woman, while the beard speaks of the man. This explanation is eyebrow raising because the Torah generally follows the order of applying the first noun to the first noun (which are man and head) and the second noun to the second noun (which are woman and beard).

Alshikh ignores the cantillation mark which puts a significant pause between the man or woman (pause) - on the head or beard, suggesting that both man or woman is connected to “on the head,” while “on the beard” is a tag-on for the men, who are afflicted on their beard for not showing respect to other people (he explains what he means).

Or HaChaim explains the verse first saying that the word “or” as in “a man or a woman” is utilized to separate the experiences of the man and the woman, rather than using the word “and” which would otherwise suggest that the rule in this verse apply equally to man and woman on head and on beard – which it doesn’t, because, as he puts it, “a woman does not have a beard.” He concludes, however, suggesting that were it to be the case that a woman does grow a beard (I was right about the bearded lady!), the rules of the verse would apply to her equally. 

There you have it folks. Equality in the Torah. Men and women can both get the same affliction. And there is even no discrimination against women who grow beards.

While we yearn for a time when God’s presence will be felt and the laws of tzara’at will be relevant to our regular existence, we also pray that all of us – men and women – can behave in a manner that would never call for or cause anyone to get tzara’at, because that would mean that we fundamentally respect one another and look out for our fellow Jew and fellow human being in a manner befitting what should be our God-like natures.

Proper Role Playing

Parshat Bamidbar

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The beginning of our new book informs us of the order of travels, and how the people encamped around the Mishkan (Tabernacle). Those most immediately around the Mishkan were the Levite families, whose jobs consisted of carrying the different parts of the Mishkan. The specific assignments given to the families are enumerated at the end of the Torah portion, and spill over into next week’s parsha.

 We are told at the end of the opening chapter that when they would travel and when they would rest the Levites would disassemble and reassemble the Mishkan, with the warning that “the stranger who came close would die.” (1:51) And, as Rashi notes, this death punishment was to be carried out by God, not by Man.

 If only it were so simple.

Discrimination? Judgment v. Mercy

Parshat Bamidbar

by Rabbi Avi Billet

After the Torah describes the order and population of how the Israelites traveled in the desert, we are told of how the tribe of Levi was not counted with everyone else, nor did they travel amongst the people. Their camp was around the Mishkan, and their jobs focused on the breaking down, carrying and reconstructing the Mishkan as per the travels of the nation.

            

Verse 1:51 says: "When the Mishkan is moved, the Levites shall take it down, and when it is to remain in one place, they shall set it up. Any non-Levite who participates shall die." The instructions are pretty straightforward as to who may or may not participate in these efforts.

            

But the translation easily drops a hidden message embedded in this verse.

            

Rabbenu Bachaye points to eight words in the verse – two groups of four words – that happen to spell out God's name in their "roshei teivot" (acronym). Both times God's name appears backwards, with the "heh" (last letter of God's name) coming in the word "Ha'Leviim."

            

This is not Bible codes. This is not word jumps or counted spaces between letters. Compare the following to the translation given above: "When the Mishkan is moved it will be taken down by Ha'Leviim (Heh) U'vachanot (Vav) HaMishkan (Heh) Yakumu (Yud) [it will be set up by] Ha'Leviim (Heh). V'hazar (Vav) Hakarev (Heh) Yumat (Yud)."

            

(נא) ובנסוע המשכן יורידו אותו ה'לוים ו'בחנות ה'משכן י'קומו אותו ה'לוים ו'הזר ה'קרב י'ומת.

The Tetragrammaton appears in acronym form, twice backwards, in one verse, with no skips between the words that make the letters that spell God's name.

Says Rabbenu Bachaye: "Anytime you find God's name planted backwards in a four-word phrase teaches you about God's trait of judgment. Haman the wicked included God's name when he told his wife that all of the grandeur to which he was honored was meaningless as long as he saw Mordechai sitting in the king's courtyard. [zeh (Heh) einenu (Vav) shoveh (Heh) li (Yud)] Thus God's trait of judgment was unleashed upon him. The verse begins with the missing part of God's name (Vov and Heh – U'vinsoa Hamishkan) and concludes with God's trait of judgment pronounced on the stranger – the non-Levite – who comes close to participate in the service of the Levites. This judgment was demonstrated in the story of Uzah in Shmuel II chapter 6. Interestingly, the reference to God's name begins in both instances here on the word 'Ha'Leviim' because the character of Levi is similarly one of judgment."

            

The reference to Haman is interesting because a statement that Esther makes includes the name of God as well, but with the letters appearing the proper order: "Yavo HaMelekh V'Haman Hayo" – "May the King and Haman come today to the party I am making." The Shem MiShmuel, in his words on Purim from 5671 (1911), mentioned that "It is known that when God's name appears this way in the correct order that it refers to God's trait of Mercy."

            

The appearance of God's name backwards in our verse is not necessarily a bad thing. We know that God has different sides – Judgment and Mercy – both of which are essential for Him to have the impact we envision Him having in our lives.

            

Perhaps one can argue that His attribute of Judgment is what balances us, and His attribute of Mercy is what balances Him.

            

But a line is drawn in the role assigned to the Levites. And this line is essential in our understanding of our roles in Jewish life. Some will call it discrimination, but some will say, it helps me understand what my purpose in life is versus what it is not. The Levites served as judges for the people, and they served God in their roles in the Mishkan. Their roles were for them alone – not to be shared with non-Levites.

            

A non-Levite could have the greatest of intentions, he or she could want to come as close to God as allowable through participating in the breakdown and reconstruction of the Mishkan in the Israelite travels.

            

But God's attribute of Judgment says, "No. That's not your role. And don't even go there."

            

Foul! Unfair! Discrimination! Racism! Down with conservatism! Does God really care! What about equality! Egalitarianism! Fairness!

            

The devout don't cry in this manner, because the devout recognize the balance that God put into His world, and His demands of us. Every one of us has a role, and everyone of us has the opportunity to find a route that helps us connect to God. Sometimes we tap into His attribute of Judgment and come out on top because of our behavior. Sometimes we tap into His attribute of Mercy and come out on top because of His mercy.

            

And our behavior choices can also have us come out on the bottom in both cases.

            

Our challenge is to find and embraceour particular roles, and bring God into the equation as often as we can. Hopefully we're spelling His name properly and not backwards, because in this format we will more often come out on top as we tap into His mercy.

            

But even when His name is spelled backwards, we have a formula for a set of behaviors that help guide us in doing what's right so we can still shine – because we are prepared to be judged – in our everlasting efforts of serving God in the way that is best for each one of us.

Going to Shul Weekdays and Shabbos

Shul Attendance (For Men and Women) Is All About Training

by AVI BILLET

I have seen a theme in the blogosphere over the last few days: the following blog posts are presented in (what I think is) their chronological order – all addressing "Why Women Don't Go To Shul." Some of these are a "view from Israel," while some were penned in the United States.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/not-exactly-a-seat-of-honor/

http://choppingwood.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/the-embarrasment-that-is-womens-section.html

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/scroll-up/

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-women-dont-go-to-shul/

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/dont-blame-women-for-not-going-to-shul/

Rabbi Fink (last of the five) compared what he believes to be the reasons men go to shul with reasons why women might as well – and he clarified for me on Facebook that he is mostly speaking about on Shabbos. It is certainly true that some people go out of a sense of obligation, and some go for social reasons – seeing friends, schmoozing, drinking, the Kiddush, etc.

In this contribution to the subject (which alludes to points made in all of the posts linked above), our focus will distinguish between weekdays and Shabbos in hopes of finding an answer to the conundrum.

Weekdays

            

Weekday attendance boils down to one's training and one's M.O. as an adult. Men may "know" they have an obligation to pray three times a day, but it is only those that I classify as "shul guys" who actually make the regular effort. Conflicts come up (timing, work, kids, business-travel, etc), a person can't always make it. But the shul-guy's heart is in shul. And he is there often.

            

I would bet that those who are shul-guys have been going to shul since they were children, davening in a minyan in school, and dragged or brought to mincha-maariv regularly. And when they were off from school, their parents had them go to shul as well. Not just on Shabbos and Yom Tov, but Chol Hamoed, Sundays, legal holidays and winter and summer vacations. If their families went on trips – skiing, Disney, etc., they made an effort to either create or find a minyan.

            

The fact remains that though shuls are quite active in the morning and evening hours of every weekday, the primary attendees are men. Every now and then a young woman, recently back from Israel perhaps, will appear in shul. Sometimes a woman saying kaddish for a yarzeit will make an appearance, or a woman saying kaddish for her parent might be a regular attendee. But these are uncommon.

            

More often the women's section, during the week, is either empty or occupied by (male) latecomers or Yeshiva guys. [This is very wrong behavior because it further makes women feel unwelcome. Shuls that are aware of this put up signs saying "Please reserve the women's section for women."]

            

That women don't show up is partially because of the excuses – and they are all legitimate: women do not have the "obligation," those who are mothers have other responsibilities, and there is not really a social element to the weekday davening.* This does not explain why women who are looking to have a minyan experience, who are not mothers of young children and do not have other responsibilities do not come to shul. There isn't a "welcoming" atmosphere to anyone on the weekday because of the fast pace of a workday: those who come during the week are usually interested in davening, yes, but in getting through it as expeditiously as possible – no wasting time, do your business, and move on with your day.

Shabbos

There are two kinds of shuls: the kind in which women feel comfortable, and the kind in which they do not. Certainly some shuls make a bigger deal out of the women's section and put more efforts into making it a respectable space for tefillah. And some completely neglect the space.

To be honest, I hear both sides. A majority of the women I see coming to shul come for the final hour of the Shabbos morning davening. For those who come from the beginning, they certainly deserve a welcoming space. But for those who only come for the 1 hour per week, I completely understand why a shul would not budget for the space (though this is likely more of an issue in Israel than in the US where shuls do take the women's section into consideration, particularly when constructing a new facility).

There are also many reasons women would not come to shul. Some are communal (shul doesn't care, I don't like the shul atmosphere, women are left out of the service, I don't like the way they have the mechitza, etc); some are openly personal (no child care, too much talking, too much shushing, etc); some are intimately personal (a widow or divorcee feels out of place or lonely, anger with God, someone said something once, etc.); to some women, davening may be a meaningless gesture, or something they prefer to do at home. Where any shul can address the issue, the shul should do its best to correct the problem. Unfortunately, blaming a shul for any individual's private and very personal problems with the shul enters into the realm of "unfair."

In the shuls I have worked and prayed, women come on Shabbos morning. Some to pray, some to talk. Some come early and daven. Some come a little later and daven. Some come late and listen to the sermon or talk during davening or in the hallway. I find a special irony in cases where women wish to kiss the Torah and then talk during the Torah reading (men too, by the way). Not that all do this, but it becomes a question of what are our priorities – an external gesture which turns out to be meaningless (if one talks during the reading), or an internalization of the Torah words which are publicly read? Seems to me the latter should be the priority.

The excuse that women do not have a participatory role in shul is, in my opinion, just an excuse. In a shul that has 100 men and 100 women, about 14 men have a role. Let's assume for a moment that the rabbi doesn't count. 2 Gabbaim, 3 baalei tefillah (unless there is a cantor), 1 Torah reader and 8 aliyahs. 86% of the men have the same role as the women, and yet they come all the same. Their role is to worry about their own tefillah, participate in whatever singing and communal responses, and make their best effort to get close to God.

I know a number of women who are "shul-women" and "tefillah-women." They view both experiences as very important in their lives, they daven every day, and they go to shul on Shabbos where they are content with their role as an actively participating member of the tzibbur – who answers to brachot, kaddish, kedusha, and joins in communal singing. They never need to play the speaking role of chazzan or person getting an aliyah (which many men shy away from as well) and can go about their business without anyone being the wiser – because davening is not about a show. It is about a personal experience.

They probably did not have the same training as the "shul-guys" (bottom line: attendance in shul is largely related to one's having been trained to be a shul person), and they more likely came to their shul-person status through either positive Shabbos experiences growing up, or on account of their own religious and soul-searching in formative years.

When people make shul about everything else (can I lead Kabbalat Shabbat, will I get to carry the Torah, or kiss the Torah, does the shul even make an effort to make me feel comfortable, whether it provides childcare, a hashkamah minyan for one spouse so the other can go later), they have many causes to complain about the roles they do not have, and how annoying shul is. 

But when people understand what the purpose of the shul experience is supposed to be it can be rewarding no matter the circumstances, if the attitude a person brings to shul is one that says, "I am here to have the experience I am looking for. It is up to me to create it."

After all - אמ אין אני לי מי לי

* There is no "social element" to any davening. You are either speaking to God, you are silent, or you are speaking to a person. When conversing with a person, you are not davening.

Men, Women, and Megillah

[This is not as much a Purim dvar Torah, as much as it is a thought related to the title, using examples from Megillat Esther.]

Emotional vs Intellectual decision making

By Rabbi Avi Billet

I don’t care very much to compare women and men simply because I think the comparison isn't fair. Human we all are, but other than the obvious physical differences, I believe that the natural differences that come from being different genders make comparisons ill-conceived. It's almost like comparing a tennis player to a soccer player, wondering which is a better athlete.

I first heard the following generalization from one Rabbi W/Vunder who was one of the rabbis on the Heritage Tours trip to Poland that I participated in as a teenager, when I noticed Israeli girls weeping in Auschwitz while I was scribbling in my notebook and keeping my emotions to myself. He said, "That's the way it is. Girls are more emotional." The generalization is more supported in a simple Google search than the other way around, and it follows that males – in general, though by no means exclusively – make more decisions based on a rational or intellectual thought process, while females are (generally, though not exclusively) more prone to making decisions based on emotions.

            

With that in mind, I confess that this past week, in advance of one of my public speaking engagements, I happened to run some of the ideas past my wife, who told me that one of the thoughts I planned to share – though heavily sourced in a comment of Tosafos (Yoma 72a) as well as by many Rabbinic sources from the last several centuries – was anachronistic and inappropriate for the intended audience. 

Was her response emotional or highly thought out? It may have been both. But I can say with certainty that my defense was purely emotional. What's wrong with it, I argued! Every person who studied in yeshiva knows this! Yes, she responded, but your audience is not a bunch of yeshiva guys. I realized I was letting my emotions dictate what my intellect was telling me should be OK to share. The emotion versus intellect roles, it seems, had been reversed.

As luck would have it a rabbi I admire happened to approach me before I spoke. I quickly asked his advice to which he responded quoting Bereshit 21:12: "All that your wife Sarah has told you, listen to her voice!" And I did. They were both right.

With all this background, I think there are two very worthy points we can take from Megillat Esther which can play a significant role in the male-female relationship: the first for spouses and the second for those looking to find spouses.

The Megillah is full of characters who are impulsive, who make every decision based on their emotions. Arguably the only exceptions to this are Mordechai explaining to Esther how she can not shirk her opportunity to save her people (which causes Esther to change her emotional response to an intellectual response), and Haman's wife Zeresh who lays out for her husband a logistical plan for how to rid himself of the nuisance called Mordechai who literally ruins Haman's day every time he refuses to bow. She tells him, "Make a wood [gallows] 50 cubits high, and in the morning you will tell the king, Mordechai will be hanged, and you will come to [Esther's second] party happy." (Esther 5:14)

The king's insomnia may have uncovered his obligation to Mordechai for saving his life, but he may have chosen to honor Mordechai in a different way had Haman not shown up in the middle of the night and gotten tricked into playing into the king's "trap." Even if Mordechai had been otherwise rewarded that night, without a personal parade and Haman's disgrace, were Haman to come along in the morning to say, "Since saving your life, Mordechai has become a traitor!" there is a reasonable chance to say the king might have allowed the execution after he had paid his debt to the man.

But everything changed for Haman because of his problem; he did not listen to his wife! His wife said, "Sleep on it. Wait until the morning." But he had no patience. He let his emotions overtake him, and they told him, "You have to do this now." Intellectually it made sense, but the intellect was really driven by the emotion.

The moral of the story: If your wife gives you good, sound advice, take it and follow it.

The second lesson about relationships is based on a comment made by Rabbi Elijah Kramer, the Gaon of Vilna (Gra), when Achashveirosh crowns Esther queen. "Esther was brought to the king in the tenth month, Tevet, in the seventh year of his reign. And of all the women, the king loved Esther, for she found favor and kindness before him… and he placed the crown on her head, making her queen in place of Vashti." (Esther 2:16-17)

The Gra wrote, "He crowned her immediately, without waiting to see if there might be one more pleasing than she. He told himself there is none better than she."

One can argue that a man who has spent every day with a different woman for four years either knows everything about women, doesn't know what he's looking to find, or knows exactly what he is looking for in a woman.

In light of the Gra's interpretation, my vote is for the final possibility because I believe that the "Maybe there is someone better" attitude is one of the most destructive approaches to "shidduchim" out there. Too many people play games with others' time and lives because they don't really know what they are looking to find.

We can learn from Achashveirosh, however, to know what you're looking to find so that when it comes your way there need not be hesitation. Go for it. Work at it. Make it work. Lightning doesn't strike. Bells and whistles don't sound. You just know. You make a decision, a commitment, and then a "go" at a life together. And with God's help, it lasts a lifetime.

And when men listen to the sage voice of "all that Sarah says to you," (not that men don't have good advice, ideas, suggestions and encouragement to provide as well – it does take two to tango, after all) we can come out looking great for doing the right thing.

            

And our relationship is only strengthened as a result.

            

Shelo Asani Ishah Part I - Needing Better Hasbara

This is the first of two essays on this topic. Part II can be found here 

In Israel, the term "hasbara" refers to "Good P.R." (Public Relations). When something looks bad to skeptical observers, good "hasbara" explains the rationale behind decisions and actions taken.

In essence, hasbara is a form of being a spinmeister - either to explain the unexplainable or to clarify a major misunderstanding.

Judaism has a lot of explaining to do. Not because our religion or its practices need defense (maybe it does, sometimes), but because there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding. People may read a passage, in context, and even moreso out of context, and draw their own conclusions about what things mean.

The Talmud (and other Jewish books) were burned in 1242 because of misunderstandings in the Talmud (this is a very simple explanation, I know), causing the loss of hundreds of years of scholarship. Remember that pre-printing press all copies of books were hand copied, with no typeset and molds to reprint lost editions.

She'lo Asani Isha

I know this is a loaded topic. But I am going to give a new stab at it. With no apologetics.

A number of years ago I came across Joel Wolowelsky's book about women in Jewish life (I don't have the book, but I imagine it was probably "Women, Jewish Law and Modernity: New Opportunities in a Post-Feminist Age"). He has a section in the book entitled "The Silent Bracha" in which he argues that the blessing recited in the morning prayers "Blessed are you God... that He did not make me a woman" should be recited silently in the synagogue.

The crux of the argument included the idea that since more and more women attend the synagogue, when they are present they are forced to answer Amen to such an insensitive denigrating blessing. To affirm that they are inferior. (I am not quoting verbatim - just as memory serves me, or perhaps as my own interpretation is taking the argument.)

This, of course, is more than insensitive - it is offensive.

An Impossibility
Is it really possible that the authors of such a blessing were unaware that half of the population are women? Can we accept the premise that the rabbis who put together the prayer book were so dumb they wouldn't realize women would read and understand this blessing and become incensed? Can you imagine them going home to their wives that evening

- "Honey, what did you do today?"

- "It was incredible. We composed the opening blessings of the prayer book. We bless God for the most incredible gifts He has given us. For giving us the ability to see, to wake up, to stand, for shoes, clothing etc."

- "Sounds really nice, dear."

- "Oh. And..."

- "Was there another blessing?"

- "Uhhhhh...."

- "Come on! You can tell me. I promise I won't get upset!"

- "Thank you for not making me a woman! You understand, honey. I don't want to be what you are. You repulse me! That's why we made such a blessing."

- she hits him over the head with a vase

Seems ludicrous! And yet I still remember the anger of the woman who said to me, "I will never forgive a religion that has such a blessing in its liturgy" (OK. Those weren't her exact words - but that was her point.)

As such, I feel this bracha needs better hasbara. It really gets a bad rap.

The Drama Man inside of me

As an actor, I often question what is the correct "dramatic reading" of statements which are supposed to be spoken. I ask this question when characters in the Bible speak, and I ask it here as well. What is the intention of the speaker? What information does the speaker have? What influences what the speaker says?

To put it a different way, the blessing could have just as easily read "She'asani Ish" - for having made me a man.

The fact that it is written in the negative, blessing for "not being a woman," is suggestive, and requires of us to think why these words were chosen and what was their original intention.

Blessing, not "Thank you"

We give blessings for all kinds of things, whether we appreciate them or not. It is the way of a Jew to bless God.

But this is not "thank you." This statement in thanks form could be offensive - "Thank GOD that I am not a woman." But that is not the blessing. The blessing is "Blessed are you God, that He did not make me a woman."

Bad Hasbara

The first interpretation of this blessing I ever heard was this: (Warning, if you are easily offended, skip to the next subtitle.)

"Women do things that men are not capable of doing. For example, childbirth. Men thank God for not having given them this responsibility, for having spared them this difficulty and painful experience."

What a pathetic explanation! I could go on a whole tirade of how the birth experience is something many women would not trade in for the world. The fact that birthing has become a medical procedure in this country (USA) (emergencies not withstanding) is a stain on the natural birth process that women could be experiencing.

Besides, how lame is a man for thinking such a thing, and even more so for saying such a thing.

Those men among us who are married and have children know all too well (and if not, here is your
wake up call) of how amazing our wives are for going through this, so we can share in parenthood. We know we could never do it. But we don't bless God for not putting us through labor. We thank God for giving us our wives.

The Apologist Answer

A different approach is the apologetic one. "The female is the stronger sex. They can handle being female. I could never handle being female. I couldn't live up to it. Bless God for not having made me a woman. I would be the most pathetic woman."

I don't think I could find a bigger loser than the person who reads the blessing this way. Be a man! Be proud of who you are and of what you are!

A Better Approach

Up until recently, this next approach was the one I favored. I heard it first from Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald, the founder of the National Jewish Outreach Program, and then saw a similar explanation in the Artscroll siddur.

Look at the blessing in context. It appears as the climax of three blessings that are worded in a similar way: "Blessed are you, Lord, our God, king of the Universe, that He did not make me a..." The three blessings conclude, in this order: a gentile, a servant/slave, a woman. As the three blessings are worded the same way, they are now poetry, and not meant to be viewed in an offensive manner.

The nice interpretation is that these are a progression. Each has a different level of obligations in Judaism - the gentile has 7 commandments, the servant/slave has more, and the Jewish woman still has even more. But even the Jewish woman is not obligated in all of the commandments. So the man blesses "For that He did not make me a woman" who is not obligated in as many commandments.

In other words, I am commanded to manifest my relationship with God through the active role I take in physically fulfilling commandments.

Some will argue women are naturally more spiritual (which is probably true). Some will say women should have equal obligations (to fulfill time-bound commandments) as men. Maybe they should. This is not the platform for having that discussion right now. The point is that in the status quo, a man is blessing God for having given him the opportunity to have obligations and to be able to fulfill commandments through his actions.

The Artscroll siddur takes it a step further in defining natural impulses of men as being negative, and the natural impulses of women as being positive, leaving a fairly logical explanation in its wake, which the reader may take or leave. (see the commentary on page 19 and 20, in the standard Hebrew English edition of the Artscroll siddur)

One More Stab At It

Up until now, every interpretation has started with the explanation "I am thanking God for not having been made a woman who is..." the stronger sex, the better sex, the less obligated sex.

The Talmud Brachot (33b, 54a, 60b) says "a person must make a blessing over bad things, just as one makes a blessing over good things..."

Hold that thought a moment...

The fact of the matter is that there is a set blessing for both men and women. Women say "Blessed are you, Lord our God, King of the Universe, that He made me according to His will."

If I were to make something "according to my will," the object I would make would be the absolute best, the most perfect, without flaw and error. Everyone would look upon this and say "Wow you really put a lot of work and love into this. You wanted this to be perfect." And I would say "You're right."

In other words, this blessing sounds like women are made perfect.

As a mohel, one of the reasons I give for why women are not circumcised (aside from the obvious reason), is because God wanted man to "correct himself" in order to become "Tamim" - complete, perfect. God told Abraham when he commanded him regarding circumcision, "Walk before Me and become תמים - perfect/complete."

As a woman was never given this commandment, obviously she does not need correction, she is already complete. In other words, she is perfect. (Meaning, with all the flaws that humans have, but nonetheless - there is an element of perfection in her creation.)

So what is the man saying?

A New Hasbara

"God, you did not make me a woman. You made me something else, and there are all kinds of things that I need to do to overcome desires and to correct and improve myself. Sometimes I need commandments to help me do this. I need to pray harder and I need to work harder because spirituality and a connection to You does not come as easily as it does to a woman. This is hard. This is rough. But this is the way You made it. And so I bless You, for Your eternal wisdom. You know there need to be men on this earth as well - and so You made me - just not a female, Your vision of perfection."

I am not suggesting that being a male is a bad thing. But I am saying that whether a person is male or female, we might bless God for what we are, or for what we are not.

And if we can walk around without a chip on our shoulders, and make a conscious effort to find better hasbara, we may find that those old rabbis had a little more sense than we sometimes give them credit for.

We just have to learn to think as they did.

Shelo Asani Ishah Part II is here