For twenty years I have been deeply interested in contemporary responsa literature as a source of halakhic discussion, and have specifically taken an interest in the contributions of women to the halakhic discourse.
In 1998 we saw the publication of Jewish Legal Writings by Women, which broke new ground as the first book “by observant women writing on halakhah”1 and was considered proof that “halakhic scholarship is no longer a male-only bastion.”2 Since then, there has been a steady stream of articles written by women on matters of halakhah, as well as a few books by women on halakhah. 3 However, there is a marked difference between halakhic articles and responsa (halakhic rulings). As Norma Baumel Joseph has observed, “in terms of responsa specifically, women ask the questions and live with the decision, but they do not create—and have no part in the creation of—the legal text.”4 Therefore, when I read about the publication of the first volume of halakhic responsa written by women,5 I was keen to get my hands on a copy.
The eighty-five-page Hebrew booklet, entitled Mah She’elatekh Esther Vate’as 6 (literally, “What is your question, Esther, and it shall be fulfilled,” a quotation from the Book of Esther), was published in June 2014 by the Ohr Torah Stone network of religious educational institutes. It contains five responsa and one article written by HaRabbanit 7 Idit Bartov (IB), and two responsa written by HaRabbanit Anat Novoselsky (AN).8 The respondents, graduates of the five-year ordination course at the Susi Bradfield Women’s Institute for Halakhic Leadership at Midreshet Lindenbaum, were ordained by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin and Rabbi Yehoshua (Shuki) Reich in 2011 and awarded a heter hora’ah—a license to answer questions in areas of kashrut, Shabbat and festivals, family ritual purity, and mourning practices. This background is relevant because:
While important Torah articles by female Talmidot Chachamim have previously appeared that have addressed halakhic topics, nonetheless … this is the first time where women, who have been ordained to decide halakha ([through] semicha which is traditionally known as a ‘heter hora’ah’) have written halakhic responsa as opposed to articles. [Thus, in contrast to previous publications], behind the writing stands [the] halakhic authority of those who have accepted the responsibility to teach the people of Israel the way that they should go.9
This statement, printed on the back cover, clearly distinguishes this work from all previous articles written by women on halakhic matters in that, unlike articles that examine primary sources, Mah She’elatekh is itself a primary source written by respondents who have the authority to determine—rather than merely examine— Jewish law. Although Norma Baumel Joseph was correct that until now, “women ask the questions … but they do not create … the legal text,” Mah She’elatekh is a watershed moment wherein women create—and, in fact, are the sole creators of, the legal text.
Moreover, in addition to this “historic entry of learned women to the halakhic conversation,”10 the fact that there are two respondents included in this volume also points to a further innovation. As Rabbi Shuki Reich explains in his introduction: “What is a new phenomenon is that here, in our study hall, the women sit, study and teach not as individuals, but as a group. Moreover, they respond to those who turn [to them for halakhic rulings] from within their own learning [environment].”11
What Rabbi Reich is not saying is that the responsa were written collaboratively. However, what he does say is that the process of writing these responsa included discussion between peers. This is important because, as Aviad Hollander has pointed out, a successful and accepted halakhist takes the opinion of his—or her— peers into consideration.12 Thus, although in the past there have been individual women who have “studied, taught and ruled,” the very fact that women are now learning together, talking together, and consulting together on halakhic rulings is of great significance.
Yet, despite the uniqueness and historical significance of this volume, I believe that the most important consideration regarding any volume of responsa should concern the quality of the responsa rather than just the gender of the respondents. There is much more to these responsa than the fact that they have been written by women, and, as with Jewish Legal Writings by Women, although these responsa are “written by women … they are as relevant for men as for women.”13
Two of the seven responsa in Mah She’elatekh are non–gender-specific. The first, answered by HaRabbanit Bartov, addresses the question of whether it is permitted to smoke on yom tov, and the second, also answered by HaRabbanit Bartov, addresses the question of whether hot water heated by a dud shemesh (a solar-heated water tank) can be used on Shabbat. However, even though the other five questions and one article address matters of Jewish law as they apply to women, they would not be out of place in any other traditional responsa work.
To demonstrate this, I will briefly analyze aspects of two responsa and one article in terms of their style, substance, and sensitivity.
Bathing and Smoking on Yom Tov (IB)
The question being addressed here concerns smoking on yom tov. However, Rabbanit Bartov also chooses to discuss the topic of bathing on yom tov in order to “shed light on the question being examined”14 by drawing a comparison between the question of bathing and that of smoking. By doing so, Rabbanit Bartov not only illustrates how responsa can be used as a vehicle for halakhic education, but also demonstrates her deep understanding of the halakhic process.
The Rosh famously explained that a halakhic decisor must be able to be medameh milta le-milta—able to draw comparisons in reaching halakhic decisions.15 A reason that this skill is so important is because “the practice of analogical reasoning reflects the ongoing dialectic between deference to early authorities and creative innovation … a spur to creativity, but equally a motive for restraint.”16 Thus, by (successfully) drawing such a comparison, HaRabbanit Bartov demonstrates her familiarity with not only halakhic sources but also the halakhic process.
Can a Woman Be Appointed as a Dayenet (a Female Rabbinic Judge)? (IB)
In contrast to the responsa found in Mah She’elatekh, this is a lengthy halakhic article (twenty-three pages, with a six-page appendix) written by HaRabbanit Bartov to examine the halakhic propriety of appointing women as female rabbinic judges. As with her other responsa, HaRabbanit Bartov provides a thorough examination of the halakhic issues, specifically focusing on the question of whether women can hold positions of authority and whether woman can testify in a beit din (rabbinic court). At the same time, HaRabbanit Bartov also identifies the nonhalakhic reasons that have previously been cited as justification of the policy against the appointment of women as female rabbinic judges, clearly yet forcefully rebutting each of them. It is clear from her article that HaRabbanit Bartov believes that routes should be provided for the training and appointment of women as dayanot, and it is therefore noteworthy that in 2013 Ohr Torah Stone launched a dayanut track for women who have completed the heter hora’ah program.17
Lighting of Shabbat Candles in a Hotel (AN)
In this question, HaRabbanit Novoselsky is asked for her halakhic guidance concerning a situation in which the questioner is staying over Shabbat in a hotel that allows guests to light candles only in the hotel lobby (as opposed to the dining room). The questioner writes, “I know that we need to light in the place where we are eating. So what should I do in this situation? Do I fulfill my duty to light candles [if I light them] in the lobby?”18
This situation does not require any particular explanation. Therefore, HaRabbanit Novoselsky begins her responsum by presenting three distinct reasons that we light candles on Friday night. It is clear from her comments that through understanding the rationale for lighting candles, we can establish whether someone who lights candles not in the proximity of the Shabbat meal has fulfilled his or her duty.
Following her detailed examination including a discussion of whether the use of electric lights or a flashlight prior to the onset of Shabbat itself fulfills the duty of candle lighting, HaRabbanit Novoselsky offers three suggestions to the questioner, each of which shows an understanding of the halakhic requirements to light candles as well as the pragmatic considerations for a hotel guest. Rather than telling her questioner what to do, HaRabbanit Novoselsky explains what can be done, and leaves it to the questioner to decide what best suits her situation. By employing this technique, it would appear that HaRabbanit Novoselsky understands the writing of responsa as being a partnership between the shoel (questioner) and the meishiv (respondent), and, given that her questioner is familiar with many aspects of Jewish law, she simply lays out the different halakhic opinions from which her questioner may choose.
Conclusion
The significance of Mah She’elatekh as the first volume of responsa written by women cannot be overestimated. However, there is much more to Mah She’elatekh than that the two respondents are women. This volume contains thoroughly researched responsa written with clarity. Especially given the proliferation in recent years of pseudo-responsa, such as those that appear on popular “Ask the Rabbi” websites, it is refreshing to read contemporary halakhic issues treated both seriously and thoroughly. It is clear that both respondents are unafraid to employ the halakhic authority that has been bestowed on them.
At the same time, Mah She’elatekh contains responsa that seek to educate rather than merely legislate and, especially as evident from the responsa of HaRabbanit Novoselsky, there seems to be a desire to empower questioners with both halakhic knowledge and, where appropriate, halakhic choices. In responsa that address emotional as well as halakhic issues, such as “The duty of women to be happy on a festival” (AN) and “Delaying the night of immersion” (IB), we find a unique blend of pragmatic empathy that may not have been possible had the respondent been a man. At the same time, this pragmatic empathy does not imply any misplaced compromises. Instead, Mah She’elatekh demonstrates the familiarity of both respondents with a wide range of halakhic sources and methods used within traditional responsa literature to determine halakhah for centuries.
Clearly, some may continue to regard works such as Mah She’elatekh with suspicion, claiming that women’s responsa are just not, well, “traditional.” HaRabbanit Bartov concludes her article on whether a woman can be appointed as a dayenet by quoting Eliyahu Rabbah: “‘I call Heaven and earth to witness that, whether Israelite or non-Israelite, whether man or woman, whether male or female slave, the Holy Spirit rests upon a person according to his deeds.”19 Mah She’elatekh is proof that this is the case.