Ronit Irshai

Holy Rebellion examines the shifting entanglements of religion, gender, and law in times of cultural transformation. Irshai and Zion-Waldoks explore theological, halakhic, political, and sociological processes to show how they advance women's rights and are met with a conservative backlash. The authors analyze the reciprocity of cultural narratives and legal norms, and propose "narrative ripeness" and "dignity" tests to assess how change within a minority cultural community may be accelerated or hindered by state intervention. This book o ers deep insights into an Israeli society in turmoil, and elucidates how religious feminisms create enduring and radical change. It o ers a theoretical framework that contributes to discussions of multiculturalism and of illiberal backlash.

הספר מתבונן בפסיקות הלכה אורתודוכסיות מחמירות במאה העשרים בסוגיית ההפלות ומנתח את המשמעויות המגדריות העולות מהן ואת דרך הבנייתן את האישה. עמדה הלכתית הרואה באיסור הפלה איסור דאורייתא, נטען בספר, אף שזו אינה עמדה הכרחית במקורות ההלכה הראשוניים, מצמצמת את רעיון קדושת החיים למונחים ביולוגיים גרידא ובכך מבליטה את ההתייחסות לאישה כאל "חווה", אם כל חי, ולא כתכלית לעצמה, כ"אישה", שאינה רק, וגם לא בעיקר, כלי להבאת חיים חדשים לעולם. בכך פותח הספר את האפשרות לשיח הלכתי-פמיניסטי בנושא טעון זה.

This book presents, from the perspective of feminist jurisprudence and feminist and liberal bioethics, a complete study of Jewish law (halakhah) on contemporary reproductive issues such as birth control, abortion, and assisted fertility. Irshai examines these issues to probe gender-based values that underlie the interpretations and determinations reached by modern practitioners of halakhah. Her primary goal is to tell, through common halakhic tools, a different halakhic story, one that takes account of the female narrative and its missing perspective. (From Amazon.com)

The article deals with Religious homosexuals and Jewish Modern-Orthodoxy's rabbinical coping with the conflict between homosexuality and Jewish Orthodox law. It is an in-depth and encompassing study, first of its kind, which try to map an analyze variety of conservative legal strategies through which Jewish Modern-Orthodox (Religious-Zionist) rabbis deal with the subject.
מאמר זה מתמקד בהומוסקסואלים שבוחרים להשאר בעולם הדתי ובאופנים בהם מתמודדים הרבנים עם מציאות חדשה זו. הוא בוחן אסטרטגיות התמודדות שמרניות בקרב רבני הציונות הדתית בישראל עם הקונפליקט שבין הומוסקסואליות גברית והאיסור ההלכתי. המאמר מביא לראשונה, מתוך בלוגים, קטעי
  יומן, השיח ברשתות החברתיות את הצרכים של הומוסקסואלים דתיים כגון: אהבה, משפחה, מיניות, חיי אמת, איזון נפשי ועוד וחושף אסטרטגיות התמודדות שמרניות של רבנים כגון: הכחשה, המרה, עקידה ואסטרטגיות נוספות ומנתחן לאור המציאות המורכבת הזאת.

המאמר מנתח את פסקי הדין שניתנו בבית הדין הרבני
האזורי בירושלים ובבית הדין הגדול לערעורים בנוגע
לתביעה נגד הרב אבינר על רקע הטרדה מינית. המאמר
טוען כי הטיה נרטיבית הובילה את ההרכבים של שני
בתי הדין לאמץ את טיעוניו של אבינר, ולדחות את אלו
של התובעת. נוסף על כך, ההטיה הנרטיבית השפיעה
על הניתוח ההלכתי של המקרה, והובילה את בית הדין
הגדול לדיון בהגנה שנותנת כביכול חזקת הכשרות
לאבינר, ולמסקנה המשתמעת מהגנה זו , שדברי
התובעת אינם אלא "דברי השמצה זדוניים". המאמר
קורא לבית הדין להרחיב את הפרספקטיבה הנרטיבית
שלו כדי להימנע מן הסיכון שבהטיות מסוג זה .

This article reassesses certain assumptions concerning the conception of gender as a rigid binary structure within Jewish tradition, through the analysis of the scriptural ban on cross-dressing (Deut. 22:5), and its development within past and contemporary Jewish legal discourse. It proposes that the prohibition on cross-dressing has been traditionally interpreted in two opposing manners—an essentialist approach and a functionalist approach. The analysis demonstrates that both options were seen as halakhically valid, from the early rabbinic literature down to the contemporary responsa literature. Through this examination it can be demonstrated that the standard contemporary theology that affirms a rigid gender binary as the sole halakhic truth is only one hermeneutical option. Moreover, this halakhic “truth” sometimes serves as a political device wielded against Jewish religious feminism.

The present article examines the halakhic attitudes toward homosexuality in Modern Orthodoxy and in the Conservative movement, through the prism of “Aqedah Theology” and the link between religion and morality. The article argues that even if there is no clear halakhic boundary between some of the positions of Conservative and Modern Orthodox Judaism, there is a clear difference between them regarding Aqedah theology. For Modern Orthodoxy, even if God commands certain things that on the surface clash with contemporary moral concepts, individuals are expected to sacrifice or “bind” their inclinations to comply with the divine injunction. This is not the case in the Conservative movement. Here the debate is not about whether Aqedah theology is legitimate (all agree that it is not), but whether or not the situation of a human being who is barred from realizing his sexual orientation involves “binding” moral concepts.

This article contributes to the expanding field of trans-Jewish-feminist studies in general, and to the scholarship about Jewish law in particular, by analyzing the ways in which the Reform movement has gradually legitimized transgender people and accepted them fully. Applying Judith Butler's ideas about the heterosexual matrix as an analytical tool, the article demonstrates how the Reform movement, in a slow and gradual process, has left the entire heterosexual matrix behind, although it can be claimed that the process (of leaving behind the heterosexual matrix) has not run all the way to a complete dissolution.

This article seeks, in its first part, to make sense of what has been termed “feminist research in Judaic studies” and proposes differentiating between four types of feminist research: critical feminist research, gendered feminist research, mediating feminist research, and research with a “feminist sensitivity.”
In light of these distinctions, the article will seek to delineate the similarities and differences between feminist research in rabbinics and feminist research in the literature pertaining to modern halakhah.
These distinctions are not just conceptual and are intended to be used
as an analytical tool, an awareness of which could lead to new avenues of research. Therefore, the second part of the article will demonstrate, through a case study of Orthodox legal reactions to male homosexuality, how gendered feminist research in the field of modern halakhah produces new knowledge regarding the manner in which masculine identities are constituted and what they entail. This knowledge will expand critical feminist research, adding dimensions of depth over and above its intrinsic value in and of itself.

The article describes Rav Waldenberg's stance on Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) via a close reading of three responsas by him. It opens with an introduction to queer and gender theory with regard to transgenders, and it continues with the rulings in both the Orthodox and Conservative Halakha, while each denomination understood Rav Waldenberg differently. The article discusses the way in which each came to its understanding.
The article also tries to resolve the condradictions Rav Waldenberg has in his responsas, mainly since his first and third responsa seem to rule different things on the same question.
The article concludes with a concrete framework for understanding Rav Waldenberg ruling in terms of the Halakhic meaning of SRS and the complex relationship between body and soul/mind.

The present article examines the halakhic attitudes toward homosexuality in Modern Orthodoxy and in the Conservative movement, through the prism of the "Aqedah theology" and the link between religion and morality. The article argues that even if there is no clear halakhic boundary between some of the positions of Conservative and Modern Orthodox Judaism, there is a clear difference between them with regard to the Aqedah theology. For Modern Orthodoxy, even if God commands certain things that on the surface clash with contemporary moral concepts, individuals are expected to sacrifice or "bind" their inclinations to comply with the divine injunction. This is not the case in the Conservative movement. Here the debate is not about whether the Aqedah theology is legitimate (all agree that it is not), but whether the situation of a human being who is barred from realizing his sexual orientation involves "binding" moral concepts.

ABSTRACT
The present article examines the way in which Jewish theology
deals with the potential clash between Divine injunctions and
moral imperatives. I take Modern-Orthodox feminism (“religious
feminism”)1 as my test case, scrutinizing some of the ideas it has
developed about dealing with contradictions between religion
and moral principles. The decision for religious feminism is based
on the fact that its theoretical writings offer a trenchant moral
critique of religious patriarchalism and the injustices done in its
name, chiefly to women, but also direct this criticism inward, in
pursuit of internal revision of the religious system, in a process
that tries to preserve the obligation to obey Divine commands
rather than challenge them. This leads to the question of whether
a religious approach that has accepted certain moral principles (in
this case, gender equality) can serve as a privileged model for
examining the relationship between religion and morality.

This article joins the new interest in a feminist hermeneutics of
scripture featured in this journal in 2014 and contributes new
insights about the status of feminist hermeneutics in patriarchal
traditions through the prism of Modern Orthodox Jewish feminism.
Through analyzing contemporary Jewish Modern Orthodox
feminist midrashim, Irshai seeks to understand why some
contemporary Orthodox rabbis dismiss feminist interpretation as
anomalous and illegitimate. Why are radical feminist midrashic
interpretations judged inadmissible, even when they follow all
the established hermeneutical rules of traditional rabbinic interpretation?
Is it just the very fact of female authorship (in other
words, a matter of power and hierarchy)? After all, the Jewish
hermeneutical tradition is replete with deep controversies and
conflicting stances, yet the prevailing rabbinic principle is that
“both these and those are the words of the living God.” One of
the answers the article suggests is that radical feminist midrash
is problematic (for Orthodox establishment readers) because it
does not try to link its critique to voices within the tradition that
can support and sustain the values it speaks for.

This article traces the history of the Aqedah theology (the relationships between religion and ethics) as developed by Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik and Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, and its ethical, halakhic, and gender implications in contemporary Modern Orthodox and National Ultraorthodox thought. The idea that ethics has an autonomous status and may conflict with religious injunctions is exemplified by two recent books, Rabbi Yuval Cherlow’s Between the Tabernacle and the Golden Calf and Rabbi Hayyim Navon’s Benot Yaakov Bridge. The present article proposes that the permanent conflict between autonomous ethical principles and divine precepts – even if, on the surface, the latter (as embodied in Halakhah) is accorded decisive weight a priori, it keeps ethics constantly in mind and leads to an attempt to minimize the divergence between the ethical and the religious. With regard to National Ultraorthodox thought, the article proposes that there has been a sharp change of direction, moving toward the idea (almost never found in earlier Jewish thought) that ethics does not have an independent status and is defined exclusively by God’s commandments. Here the focus is on The Faith of our Time, by Rabbi Zvi Tau. I conclude that this approach is liable to dull one’s ethical sensitivities, because, whereas the confrontation between religious precepts and ethical principles keeps the latter permanently in mind, when the conflict is repressed, the ethical voice becomes increasingly softer and may no longer be heard.

The entry summarizes and analyses some of the main theological trends within Jewish feminisms. Taking a broader sense of theology as the conceptual religious underpinning that serves as a lens through which new options for interpreting the Jewish canon emerge, it focuses on five main themes: God’s ‘masculinity’ and the marginality of women and nonbinary persons, feminist Midrashim, God’s image and transgender theology, revelation, and Halakhah (Jewish Law).

The contributions of feminist theologies include an expanded range of gender references to God, attention to the attitude towards the feminine, and the inclusion of nonbinary persons; the creation of a theological infrastructure that supports more intimate and immanent ideas of divinity; a broadening of the concept of revelation to reconcile the tension between the deep masculine bias that permeates scripture and the divine and revelatory status of the word of God; and new readings of the traditional texts, including the normative Halakhic works, so that they can incorporate feminist ideas.

המאמר דן בפער בין הפסיקה הציבורית והפסיקה הפרטית וטוען כי הפסיקה הציבורית נוטה להחמיר באשר מטרתה היא הכוונת תודעה ועיצוב הנרטיב של  קהילת שומרי ההלכה, בעוד שהפסיקה הפרטית נועדה להכוונת התנהגותו של הפרט במישור המעשי ולרוב
  נוטה להיות מקלה ופרגמטית יותר. ברם, לשניות זו מתלווה לעיתים תופעת הסתרה של הפסיקה הפרטית והמאמר דן בה באופן ביקורתי ובמחירים שהיא עשויה לגבות מציבור המאמינים.

This article seeks to make sense of the theological debates within Jewish feminism which were focused on identifying the core theological problem for achieving gender justice, and on inquiring about the importance of halakhah for Jewish feminist life. The article claims that quite interestingly, and although the Orthodox tendency was and remains to emphasize halakhah and minimize theology, Orthodox feminists dealt mainly with theology while a Reform feminist dealt with halakhah. All in all, fifty years into the process it can be said that all currents of Jewish feminism accept the primacy of theology over halakhah. Even those who believe that halakhah has a place in Jewish feminism understand that halakhic change that stands alone and is not anchored in a complete theological doctrine is impossible.

This article seeks, in its first part, “to make sense” of what has been termed “feminist research in Judaic sciences" and proposes differentiating between four types of feminist research: critical feminist research, gendered feminist research, mediating feminist research, and research with a “feminist sensitivity.” In light of these distinctions, the article seeks to delineate the similarities and differences between feminist research in Rabbinics and feminist research in the literature pertaining to modern halakhah.
These distinctions are not just conceptual and are intended to be used as an analytical tool, an awareness of which could lead to new avenues of research. Therefore, the second part of the article demonstrates, through a case study of Orthodox legal reactions to male homosexuality, how gendered feminist research in the field of modern halakhah produces new knowledge regarding the manner in which masculine identities are constituted and what they entail. This knowledge will expand critical feminist research as well as research with feminist sensibility, adding dimensions of depth, over and above its intrinsic value in and of itself.

In the two iterations of the Holiness Code, in Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 22, the Torah explicitly prohibits homosexual intercourse between men. It seems that the text is clear enough and the prohibition absolute; no lenient interpretation seems possible. But Judaism always reads divine injunctions through an exegetical prism. The only question is the motivation for the exegesis and how is it carried out.
In Orthodoxy, I believe that we can identify a number of key areas in the evolution of the halakhic attitude towards homosexuality.
One of them is the attitude towards homosexual individuals, ranging from their total exclusion to an empathetic and respectful attitude and their acceptance in the religious community. Another domain is that of how the ban is interpreted: is it broad and includes homoerotic attraction between two men, or more limited and only a prohibition of all or some forms of sexual contact between them? The third domain is the transition from the idea that sexual orientation is a preference that can be modified, whence the call for conversion or reparative therapy, towards the realization that in many cases the attraction to men is irreversible. The fourth domain is the question of whether gay men should establish heterosexual families.
All these developments raise the question how Rabbis understand masculinity through the prism of homosexuality? What do they think of the male "nature" with regard to sexual attraction? Do they believe that social constructions refer to homosexuality? Finally, what can we learn from the ways masculinity is understood and being built by halakhic writings about the nature of heterosexuality and heteronormativity?
In this article I analyze some central writings in contemporary Jewish Ultra-Orthodoxy and try to trace the ways through which masculinity is being built and its gender implications.

This comprehensive, fascinating book on Jewish Orthodox gay people, was written by Orit Avishai, a Professor of Sociology and women, gender and sexuality studies at Fordham University. The book is a product of 4 years of field research in Israel. During this period, 120 open-ended interviews were conducted with self-identifying Orthodox LGBT persons, activists, allies, educators, therapists, family members, and rabbis. The ethnographic component includes observations in ritual spaces, political activism, social gatherings, and community engagement, as well as digital ethnography: Facebook pages of Orthodox LGBT persons, allies, organizations, and initiatives, and analysis of archival material. This is the first book to describe and analyze in depth the battle of Jewish Orthodox gay people to change Orthodoxy from within. Avishai frames the Orthodox LGBTQ movement as a liberal movement, focused on expanding existing structures to make room for LGBTQ Orthodox Jews, rather than a radical one, which would aim to dismantle and revolutionize the existing structures. The book presents a compelling analysis of how Orthodox Jewish LGBT persons in Israel became more accepted in their communities. It points to a major shift that took place within Orthodox society in less than 20 years. At the turn of the twentyfirst century, homosexuality and religiosity were perceived as incompatible, and religious LGBT persons were portrayed as transgressors with few religious elite allies. By 2020, we witnessed a social and cultural shift: a vibrant and visibly proud Orthodox community (known as KADAG-umbrella organization of Orthodox LGBT groups). An increasing number of young gay people are no longer willing to forgo their religious identity, but instead now identify as both Orthodox and gay. Their insistence on "remaining within" is accompanied by a halachic-theological shift as they are harbingers of public acceptance of same-sex partnerships and families. The Orthodox LGBT movement in Israel has brought about profound changes in the form and content of religious life. The book aims to portray these changes on several planes in its six chapters. Chapter One, "Making a Social Movement," offers

In this lecture I will review the attitude of Orthodox Jewish law (halakhah) over the past half-century to sex-reassignment surgery by analyzing Dor Tahpukhot, by Rabbi Idan Ben-Efrayim. This work, published in 2004, is the first comprehensive halakhic treatment of the topic.
The dominant approach of Orthodox halakhists is that such procedures are an assault on the natural divine order and a violation of many prohibitions, including those on castration and cross-dressing. Accordingly—and in addition to seeing the act itself as a perversion and abomination—many rabbis hold that halakhah continues to view transsexuals as members of their birth gender.
Ben-Efrayim proposes a more complex and tolerant approach, in which the key to the treatment of transsexuals in the public sphere of a religious community (such as the synagogue) is their outward appearance after the surgery (he relies for this on the opinion of Rabbi Waldenberg), even though, as a matter of strict halakhah, they remain as they were at birth. Ben-Ephrayim incorporates a kabbalistic vein into his halakhic analysis. It is possible that his approach marks the start of the recognition that the souls of persons who seek sex-reassignment surgery are trapped in the wrong body.

This article examines the hitherto unquestioned consensus in Judaic studies that Judaism embraces a positive attitude towards sexuality. Grounded in the new scholarly trends of cultural and gender analysis as well as feminist critique and their impact on Jewish studies, it singles out four focal issues: sexuality in ancient rabbinic thought, to which the most scholarly attention has been directed; and issues in modern Halakhah that have just begun to inform scholarly research: the ethos of modesty and the construction of the female body; homosexuality and lesbianism; and reproduction and sexuality. The discussion reflects the tension between these two scholarly trends, and between the conceptual-theological stratum of Judaism and its reflection in the practical-legal sphere of Jewish law (Halakhah). This examination of Jewish attitudes towards sexuality, in light of the new scholarship, leads to the conclusion that although Judaism affirms sexuality, this cannot be grasped in a simple, superficial, or monolithic fashion.

Winter 2013 historical details for the possible engagement she imagines, such as the political context of Sasanian Iran or even the basic geographical issues of the "Mesopotamian-Aramaic milieu." Furthermore, to be sure, sexuality became a primary category for the demarcation of communal boundaries in this period, but the significance of Late Antiquity for the history of sexuality has been long noted, and the book could have been better framed within this historiography and the category of sexuality itself further interrogated. Sexuality is after all an area often addressed by scholars of antiquity due to the impetus of Michel Foucault's and Peter Brown's work. In relation to this, the important role the mutual development of Judaism and Christianity against one another played in the religionizing process, something implicit in Koltun-Fromm's book, could have been set next to the emergence of new notions of the body and sexuality. What is the precise relationship between the history of sexuality and the new ideas of religious community that were simultaneously developing? Despite these criticisms, the author deserves congratulations for unlocking a complex history that required her to engage with several distinct fields: Hebrew Bible, Second-Temple Judaism, New Testament, Syriac Studies, and rabbinics. As a Syriacist, I especially appreciate that she treats the Syriac tradition as both autonomous and complex and yet relevant to broader issues in the history of the religious world of Late Antiquity. Her book makes an important contribution to the history of Judaism by employing non-Jewish material, especially some generally unread within Jewish Studies.

... Women's Contribution to the Study and Knowledge of Torah," in Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, ed. Howard Kreisel (Beer Sheva ... The feminist-queer critique is highly relevant in that regard; see, especially, Chaim Rapoport, Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic ...

This book is the first attempt to present, from the perspective of feminist jurisprudence and feminist-liberal bioethics, a comprehensive, comparative study of Jewish law (halakhah) on contemporary reproductive issues. Taking as its point of departure the controversial claim that halakhah betrays a male bias, it questions the influence of gender concepts on modern halakhic decision-making within Orthodox Judaism related to human reproduction: birth control, abortion, and assisted fertility (artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy). The book examines these issues in an effort to probe the gender-based values, both explicit and implicit, that underlie the interpretations and determinations reached by modern practitioners of halakhah. It examines the Talmudic and medieval sources relied on by these halakhists, on the premise that doing so enables one to identify the alternative interpretive options they declined to choose. A close examination of the alternatives and interpretive strategies adopted by the decisors and of the ways in which they construe their sources—in other words, of how they “do halakhah”—can uncover the deeper layers of their gender-based value concepts related to their image of women and of women’s role in the social order. One of the book’s main conclusions is that in matters pertaining to “Sex without Procreation” (abortion and birth control), the prevailing tendency is to rule strictly and to impose significant limitations on practice. With respect to “Procreation without Sex,” however—that is, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogacy—it is leniency and permissiveness that prevail, to the point of disregarding some weighty ethical questions. The book suggests that the common explanations for this interestingly sharp contrast in attitude (such as reaction to the Holocaust or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) do not exhaust the matter and must be complemented by an understanding of the gender perceptions that underlie the ideology reflected in the decisions. This book will probe the meaning of the frequently encountered statement that halakhah is objective despite being the product of an exclusively male perspective. To do so, it will consider a broad view of the concept of gender objectivity, particularly as it has been developed in the feminist critique of scientific and legal method but also with reference to new insights in legal theory related to how judicial decisions are justified and to the complex relationship among judge, text, and interpretive community. By subjecting the halakhah, as a legal system, to a feminist jurisprudential and scientific critique, we can come to appreciate the centrality of the gender perspective to an understanding of the halakhic phenomenon overall. And while gender analysis is of great value in itself, it can also cast new light on halakhic processes in general and thereby contribute significantly to the philosophy of halakhah, the discipline in which this inquiry is grounded. In that sense, the purpose in subjecting the halakhah to a feminist critique is not only to conduct a “local” analysis looking toward one or another halakhic resolution of a problem pertaining to women; it is, rather, to tell, through common halakhic tools, a different halakhic story, one that takes account of the female narrative and its missing perspective. The last decade has seen the emergence of female halakhists who have mounted both an internal and external challenge to the halakhah as now formulated, using the halakhah’s own tools to question it from the perspective and life experiences of women. Accordingly, the time has come for a study that attends to the new voices emanating from the study halls of women’s yeshivas and that uses a systematic analysis of modern halakhic literature—which, unlike earlier rabbinic literature, will likely sense the new spirit of equality—to show how the formulation of halakhic rulings, specifically in areas unique to female life experiences, is grounded in gender concepts, mostly latent, that preserve the existing patriarchal order. This book thus documents the sense of a growing number of women who want to stay loyal to the traditional world but who find that the patriarchal picture of the world on which Jewish law is grounded no longer corresponds to the circumstances of their lives. Halakhic scholars have shown the impossibility of distinguishing categorically between law and ethics and have illuminated the range of value-based considerations that underlie halakhic rulings; but little effort has been made to analyze responsa literature from the perspective of gender, particularly with regard to the reproductive issues to be focused on here. (These issues have been widely studied from the general perspective of “bioethics and halakhah,” but those works take little account, if any, of gender concerns). The few studies that have been produced are highly localized and fail to provide a basis for…

The past few years have witnessed the halachic discussion, in Modern Orthodox circles, of various suggestions for radical changes in the structure of prayer in the synagogue. According to these suggestions, women would be permitted to perform the reading of the Torah in synagogue in the framework of a standard orthodox congregation, and not in separate women’s prayer groups. Following these discussions, New Minyanim were opened where women being called up to the Torah and reading in synagogue during Sabbath morning prayers was allowed, a phenomenon which is slowly spreading throughout the Modern Orthodox community. These communities are not separate ‘‘women’s communities,’’ and they are characterized by all of the accepted Orthodox trappings, including the mehitzah (partition) between men and women, the requirement of a male quorum and traditional, unchanged prayer services (except for very slight changes); and yet, this is a radical change which many within the Orthodox halachic world vehemently oppose. In this article I hope to explain the Orthodox opposition to women’s reading of the Torah, to expose the moral underpinnings of this opposition, and to critically analyze the fundamental arguments which supposedly justify it, as they are presented in their—in my opinion—most pronounced forms in the writings of Professor Eliav Shochetman and Rabbi Shlomo Riskin. I would like to propose that the opposition to women’s Torah reading reflects the basic ideological tensions which prevent the continued implementation of egalitarian feminist precepts in Modern Orthodox communities. I will attempt to show that the dispute regarding women’s Torah reading represents a sort of litmus test for other fundamental issues regarding the relation

This article seeks to make sense of the theological debates within Jewish feminism which were focused on identifying the core theological problem for achieving gender justice, and on inquiring about the importance of halakhah for Jewish feminist life. The article claims that quite interestingly, and although the Orthodox tendency was and remains to emphasize halakhah and minimize theology, Orthodox feminists dealt mainly with theology while a Reform feminist dealt with halakhah. All in all, fifty years into the process it can be said that all currents of Jewish feminism accept the primacy of theology over halakhah. Even those who believe that halakhah has a place in Jewish feminism understand that halakhic change that stands alone and is not anchored in a complete theological doctrine is impossible.

Abstract:This article reassesses certain assumptions concerning the conception of gender as a rigid binary structure within Jewish tradition, through the analysis of the scriptural ban on cross-dressing (Deut. 22:5), and its development within past and contemporary Jewish legal discourse. It proposes that the prohibition on cross-dressing has traditionally been interpreted in two opposing manners—an essentialist approach and a functionalist approach. Both options, from the early rabbinic literature down to the contemporary responsa literature, were seen as halakhically valid. Thus, the standard contemporary theology affirming a rigid gender binary as the sole halakhic truth represents just one hermeneutic option. This halakhic “truth” has served as a political device wielded against Jewish religious feminism.

Of course, from childhood to forever, we are always thought to love reading. It is not only reading the lesson book but also reading everything good is the choice of getting new inspirations. Religion, sciences, politics, social, literature, and fictions will enrich you for not only one aspect. Having more aspects to know and understand will lead you become someone more precious. Yea, becoming precious can be situated with the presentation of how your knowledge much.

The present article examines the halakhic attitudes toward homosexuality in Modern Orthodoxy and in the Conservative movement, through the prism of the “Aqedah theology” and the link between religion and morality. The article argues that even if there is no clear halakhic boundary between some of the positions of Conservative and Modern Orthodox Judaism, there is a clear difference between them with regard to the Aqedah theology. For Modern Orthodoxy, even if God commands certain things that on the surface clash with contemporary moral concepts, individuals are expected to sacrifice or “bind” their inclinations, including their moral values, to comply with the divine injunction. This is not the case in the Conservative movement. Here the debate is not about whether the Aqedah theology is legitimate (all agree that it is not), but whether the situation of a human being who is barred from realizing his sexual orientation involves “binding” moral concepts.

This book is the first attempt to present, from the perspective of feminist jurisprudence and feminist-liberal bioethics, a comprehensive, comparative study of Jewish law (halakhah) on contemporary reproductive issues. Taking as its point of departure the controversial claim that halakhah betrays a male bias, it questions the influence of gender concepts on modern halakhic decision-making within Orthodox Judaism related to human reproduction: birth control, abortion, and assisted fertility (artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy). The book examines these issues in an effort to probe the gender-based values, both explicit and implicit, that underlie the interpretations and determinations reached by modern practitioners of halakhah. It examines the Talmudic and medieval sources relied on by these halakhists, on the premise that doing so enables one to identify the alternative interpretive options they declined to choose. A close examination of the alternatives and interpretive strategies adopted by the decisors and of the ways in which they construe their sources—in other words, of how they “do halakhah”—can uncover the deeper layers of their gender-based value concepts related to their image of women and of women’s role in the social order. One of the book’s main conclusions is that in matters pertaining to “Sex without Procreation” (abortion and birth control), the prevailing tendency is to rule strictly and to impose significant limitations on practice. With respect to “Procreation without Sex,” however—that is, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogacy—it is leniency and permissiveness that prevail, to the point of disregarding some weighty ethical questions. The book suggests that the common explanations for this interestingly sharp contrast in attitude (such as reaction to the Holocaust or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) do not exhaust the matter and must be complemented by an understanding of the gender perceptions that underlie the ideology reflected in the decisions. This book will probe the meaning of the frequently encountered statement that halakhah is objective despite being the product of an exclusively male perspective. To do so, it will consider a broad view of the concept of gender objectivity, particularly as it has been developed in the feminist critique of scientific and legal method but also with reference to new insights in legal theory related to how judicial decisions are justified and to the complex relationship among judge, text, and interpretive community. By subjecting the halakhah, as a legal system, to a feminist jurisprudential and scientific critique, we can come to appreciate the centrality of the gender perspective to an understanding of the halakhic phenomenon overall. And while gender analysis is of great value in itself, it can also cast new light on halakhic processes in general and thereby contribute significantly to the philosophy of halakhah, the discipline in which this inquiry is grounded. In that sense, the purpose in subjecting the halakhah to a feminist critique is not only to conduct a “local” analysis looking toward one or another halakhic resolution of a problem pertaining to women; it is, rather, to tell, through common halakhic tools, a different halakhic story, one that takes account of the female narrative and its missing perspective. The last decade has seen the emergence of female halakhists who have mounted both an internal and external challenge to the halakhah as now formulated, using the halakhah’s own tools to question it from the perspective and life experiences of women. Accordingly, the time has come for a study that attends to the new voices emanating from the study halls of women’s yeshivas and that uses a systematic analysis of modern halakhic literature—which, unlike earlier rabbinic literature, will likely sense the new spirit of equality—to show how the formulation of halakhic rulings, specifically in areas unique to female life experiences, is grounded in gender concepts, mostly latent, that preserve the existing patriarchal order. This book thus documents the sense of a growing number of women who want to stay loyal to the traditional world but who find that the patriarchal picture of the world on which Jewish law is grounded no longer corresponds to the circumstances of their lives. Halakhic scholars have shown the impossibility of distinguishing categorically between law and ethics and have illuminated the range of value-based considerations that underlie halakhic rulings; but little effort has been made to analyze responsa literature from the perspective of gender, particularly with regard to the reproductive issues to be focused on here. (These issues have been widely studied from the general perspective of “bioethics and halakhah,” but those works take little account, if any, of gender concerns). The few studies that have been produced are highly localized and fail to provide a basis for…

This article joins the new interest in a feminist hermeneutics of scripture featured in this journal in 2014 and contributes new insights about the status of feminist hermeneutics in patriarchal traditions through the prism of Modern Orthodox Jewish feminism. Through analyzing contemporary Jewish Modern Orthodox feminist midrashim, Irshai seeks to understand why some contemporary Orthodox rabbis dismiss feminist interpretation as anomalous and illegitimate. Why are radical feminist midrashic interpretations judged inadmissible, even when they follow all the established hermeneutical rules of traditional rabbinic interpretation? Is it just the very fact of female authorship (in other words, a matter of power and hierarchy)? After all, the Jewish hermeneutical tradition is replete with deep controversies and conflicting stances, yet the prevailing rabbinic principle is that “both these and those are the words of the living God.” One of the answers the article suggests is that radical feminist midrash is problematic (for Orthodox establishment readers) because it does not try to link its critique to voices within the tradition that can support and sustain the values it speaks for.

Jewish law includes two parallel systems of halakhic ruling: public and private. There is often a significant gap between what halakhic authorities proclaim publicly and what they are willing to say, on the same topic, in private. The ability to deviate from the original ruling in order to solve concrete problems answers one of the central demands of feminist critics of the law. It enables flexibility and creativity on the part of the decisor and avoids the characteristic pitfalls of the generalized nature of the law, which, according to feminist critics, affect primarily women. On the face of it, halakhah works in this flexible mode. However, the selective concealment mechanism built into the halakhic system prevents this benefit from being felt, primarily by disadvantaged populations. In its absence Jewish law may be capable, at least in principle, of instituting a halakhic model which responds to inherent problems within the two parallel systems of halakhah as well as to feminist...

The past few years have witnessed the halachic discussion, in Modern Orthodox circles, of various suggestions for radical changes in the structure of prayer in the synagogue. According to these suggestions, women would be permitted to perform the reading of the Torah in synagogue in the framework of a standard orthodox congregation, and not in separate women’s prayer groups. Following these discussions, New Minyanim were opened where women being called up to the Torah and reading in synagogue during Sabbath morning prayers was allowed, a phenomenon which is slowly spreading throughout the Modern Orthodox community. These communities are not separate ‘‘women’s communities,’’ and they are characterized by all of the accepted Orthodox trappings, including the mehitzah (partition) between men and women, the requirement of a male quorum and traditional, unchanged prayer services (except for very slight changes); and yet, this is a radical change which many within the Orthodox halachic world vehemently oppose. In this article I hope to explain the Orthodox opposition to women’s reading of the Torah, to expose the moral underpinnings of this opposition, and to critically analyze the fundamental arguments which supposedly justify it, as they are presented in their—in my opinion—most pronounced forms in the writings of Professor Eliav Shochetman and Rabbi Shlomo Riskin. I would like to propose that the opposition to women’s Torah reading reflects the basic ideological tensions which prevent the continued implementation of egalitarian feminist precepts in Modern Orthodox communities. I will attempt to show that the dispute regarding women’s Torah reading represents a sort of litmus test for other fundamental issues regarding the relation

This article contributes to the expanding field of trans-Jewish-feminist studies in general, and to the scholarship about Jewish law in particular, by analyzing the ways in which the Reform movement has gradually legitimized transgender people and accepted them fully. Applying Judith Butler's ideas about the heterosexual matrix as an analytical tool, the article demonstrates how the Reform movement, in a slow and gradual process, has left the entire heterosexual matrix behind, although it can be claimed that the process (of leaving behind the heterosexual matrix) has not run all the way to a complete dissolution.

Within most Modern Orthodox circles in Judaism (and effectively all ultra-Orthodox circles), feminism is perceived as a dangerous threat because of its seemingly radical challenge to sacred Jewish values such as the Jewish family and the binding, largely immutable nature of halakhah (that is, Jewish law, broadly construed). 
This article is trying to create a framework for using feminist insights within Orthodox halakhic discourse, by suggesting, among other things, a conversation between feminist scholarship in halakhah and theology, and contemporary critical legal theory. In so doing, it challenges some of the ways certain basic assumptions about gender inequities and, more importantly, asymmetries of power are produced and reproduced in contemporary halakhic practice. My intention is to suggest a detailed account of how halakhah can be revised and renewed (while keeping halakhic tools, mechanisms and procedures) in light of feminist values, without which the feminist revolution within Judaism cannot be completed.

Given the multifaceted obstacles facing Palestinian Muslim women in Israel, this article aims to understand what enabled the impressive sea change marked by the 2017 appointment of a Palestinian Muslim woman to the position of qadi (judge in a Muslim Shari`a court of law). The article describes some of the events leading up to this historic moment and analyzes what led to this shift in policy. The 2017 appointment is a groundbreaking achievement for the feminist struggle of Palestinian women in Israel, which primarily affects the status of Muslim women, yet it also impacted Jewish Israeli women. As understood all too well by ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) elements who hold sway in Israeli politics and strongly objected to the move, allowing Muslim women to serve in this role threatens male hegemony within the state-run rabbinic courts as well, where Jewish women are currently barred from serving as judges [dayanot]. This article analyzes the legal struggles of Muslim and Jewish feminists in Israel via Robert Cover’s theoretical perspective of nomos and narrative, which explores links between sociocultural and legal transformation. Applying Irshai and Zion-Waldoks’s concept of a narrative ripeness test, our analysis sheds light on complex processes involved in struggles for Palestinian women’s rights in Israel who, as a minority within a minority, must overcome multiple intersecting layers of discrimination. The article argues Jewish and Muslim cases interconnect—to women’s detriment or benefit—yet when women achieve rights for themselves, the principle of gender equality can potentially be expanded to benefit others as well.