Jewish Women Are Not So Hefker!

I came across this Mordechai, Ketubot 63a, which I found fascinating. The Mordechai advises for a lenient position which forces the husband to give his wife a get, since "The daughters of Israel are not so hefker!" It's an interesting sevara to prove that divorce needs to be in a way that won't take away the very real rights of women. See it:

לא משהינן אלא כייפינן ליה מיד כיון דאמרה מאיס עלי שהרי אין בנות ישראל הפקר כל כך שיהו משועבדות ליבעל למי שמאיס להם

Ramban on Exodus 22:15 also has this language, in his discussion of how the Torah seems to force a woman to marry her rapist. He thinks it is pshat in the Torah that its her decision, not the rapists, and he provides this interesting reasoning:

ועל דעת רבותינו (כתובות לט ב): גם שם בין היא בין אביה יכולין לעכב כי איננו הגון שיקחנה על כרחם, ויעשה עמה שתי רעות, ופעמים שתהיה נכבדת ממנו ולא יתכן שתתבזה בחטאו, והמשפט הישר שיהיו הנישואין בידה ולא בידו, שהוא ישאנה על כורחו שלא יהיו בנות ישראל הפקר לבעלי הזרוע.

 This accords with our rabbis, "Either she or her father can refuse," for it is not proper for her to be married against her will, which would be two evils for her [both rape and forced marriage], and sometimes she is in a higher social class than him and his sin would not cause her social embarrassment [such that she would be bereft of other marriage options]. And the moral law is that marriage is her right, not his, that he would be married to her against his will. For the daughters of Israel are not hefker for brutish men.

Rambam also uses this phrase. In his context, if women are treated as hefker, it will lead to promiscuity. Its in Yesodei HaTorah 5:9:

מי שנתן עיניו באשה וחלה ונטה למות ואמרו הרופאים אין לו רפואה עד שתבעל לו ימות ואל תבעל לו אפילו היתה פנויה ואפילו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר אין מורין לו בכך וימות ולא יורו לדבר עמה מאחורי הגדר שלא יהו בנות ישראל הפקר ויבואו בדברים אלו לפרוץ בעריות.

[When] someone becomes attracted to a woman and is [love-]sick [to the extent that] he is in danger of dying, and the physicians say he has no remedy except engaging in sexual relations with her, he should die rather than engage in sexual relations with her, even if she is unmarried.

He is even not to be given instructions to speak to her [in private] behind a fence. Rather, he should die rather than be given instructions to speak to her behind a fence, so that Jewish women would not be hefker, and these matters would lead to promiscuity.

Of course, the Mordechai's language above sounds somewhat similar to the Rambam's formulation of the law when a women claims her husband is disgusting to her. In Rambam's language (Mishneh Torah, Ishut 14:8), she is not a "captive" that she should be forced to be with someone she finds repulsive:

אם אמרה מאסתיהו ואיני יכולה להבעל לו מדעתי כופין אותו לשעתו לגרשה לפי שאינה כשבויה שתבעל לשנוא לה

 If she says, "Because I am repulsed by him and I cannot voluntarily engage in relations with him," her husband should be compelled to divorce her immediately. For she is not like a captive, that she must engage in relations with one she loathes.

Let's note that the Rambam uses the opposite language to describe Jewish women. Whereas we have seen the phrase "hefker", meaning so loosely kept or wanton, Rambam in this context says she is not "captive", as in not free or able to move. I think that's interesting.

The Yad Ramah, Sanhedrin 21a, discusses why there is an institution of marriage with kiddushin and ketubah if concubinage works. He states its the rabbis making a decree because of this familiar aphorism:

אבל אם רצה לייחד אשה בלא כתובה ובלא קידושין מדאורייתא שפיר דמי ורבנן הוא דגזור כדי שלא יהיו בנות ישראל הפקר

If he wants to seclude himself with a woman without a ketubah and without kiddushin, on a Torah level it is fine, and it is the rabbis who decreed [these two things] so that the daughters of Israel would not be hefker.  

Let us look at a comment of Rashi on Genesis 34:31. Jacob is upset that Simeon and Levi have wiped out the entire city of Shechem. Their response is. "Shall he make our sister like a harlot?" Meaning, they had to fight for their sister because leaving her in such dire circumsatnces would be to say she is like a zonah, a harlot, that they are not concerned with her welfare, especially her sexual welfare. Rashi has a one-word comment on "zonah", which is not harlotry to him. He says it means, based on Genesis Rabbah 80:12, the word word we love so much, "הפקר". Meaning, in the midrash and Rashi's reading, they were saying, "Our sister is not so hefker!"

Lastly, I'll point out this phrase precedes the rishonim. The Mishna in Yevamot 13:1 states:

אמרו להן בית הלל לבית שמאי: ממאנת והיא קטנה, אפלו ארבעה וחמשה פעמים. אמרו להן בית שמאי: אין בנות ישראל הפקר, אלא ממאנת וממתנת עד שתגדיל, ותמאן ותנשא.

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: A girl may refuse [exercise refusal] as a minor even four or five times. Beit Shammai said to them: The daughters of Israel are not hefker, rather she may refuse and then wait to attain maturity, or refuse and be married. 

 Jewish women have rights, declare the Mishna and Rishonim! Some use it in a way that means that we are afraid women will be abused sexually, but others use it to mean they have rights to freedom and choice as human beings!

Better the Torah Be Burned?

I have written before about the line in the Yerushlami where Rav Eliezer declares that better the Torah be burned than given to women:

אמר ליה ישרפו דברי תורה ואל ימסרו לנשים

 Ever since I came across another curious line in the Talmud that references to "burning the Torah", I began to suspect there is something to this phrase. See Shabbat 115b, and Tosefta Shabbat 13:4 as well:

תנו רבנן: הברכות והקמיעין, אף על פי שיש בהן אותיות של שם, ומעניינות הרבה שבתורה - אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה, אלא נשרפים במקומן הן ואזכרותיהן.  

מכאן אמרו: כותבי ברכות כשורפי תורה.

Our Rabbis taught: Benedictions and amulets, though they contain letters of the [Divine] Name and many passages of the Torah, must not be rescued from a fire but must be burnt where they lie, they together with their Names.

Hence it was said, They who write down Benedictions are as though they burnt a Torah.

Writing berachot is like burning Torah, because of the possible situation (not too uncommon in the ancient world) that it would end up being burnt, with God's name in it.

There is an interesting addition to this in Yalkut Shemoni Tzav 481:

ואי משכח גברא כתב אגרתא והאמר רבי אבא בריה דר' חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כותבי ספרים כשורפי תורה והלומד מהם אין לו קבול שכר, דדרש ר' יהודה בר נחמן מתורגמניה דר"ש בן לקיש כתוב א' אומר כתב לך את הדברים האלה וכתוב אחד אומר כי על פי הדברים האלה לומר לך דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאמרם בכתב ושבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאמרם על פה, אמרי מילתא חדתא שאני דהא ר' יוחנן וריש לקיש מעייני באגדתא בשבתא ודרשי הכי עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך מוטב תעקר אות א' מן התורה ואל תשתכח תורה מישראל

And if one forgets, he can write it on parchment. But doesn't R' Aba the son of R' Hiyya bar Aba say in in the name of R' Yochanan:  One who writes books is like he who burns the Torah, and one who learns from them gets no reward. For R' Yehudah bar Nachman, the translator of R' Shimon ben Lakish expounded one verse that says "Write for yourself these words, " and another verse says "These words should be by heart." This teaches you that words which are by heart are not allowed to be said in writing, and those which are in writing are not allowed to be said by heart. [So why can you write down the nesachim one forgets?] A sharp matter, is different. For R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish would delve into aggada on the Sabbath, and they expounded thusly: "A time to do for God, break your Torah" - it is better you uproot one letter of the Torah, rather than the Torah be forgotten in Israel."

We can see from this context that "one who burns Torah" is someone who doesn't follow the rules on how to learn it, eschewing the doctrine of not writing down the Oral Law, except in certain cases. Although in the context of Shabbat, it would seem (as per Rashi there) that writing blessings with God's name is like burning the Torah because if a fire happened, it couldn't be saved, this has nothing to do with that context!

It seems to me that "let the Torah be burned" is Rabbi Elazar saying that he is not following the proper rules of how to disseminate Torah! He really should be willing to teach Torah to women, yet he is making himself like someone who "burns the Torah". Why was that? It could be that its the same reason as not writing down the Oral law. The reason for not writing down the Oral law could have been manifold, but it seems that the focus was that the Oral law should be kept among the elite through extreme memorization - unable to be misunderstood, if kept carefully with select teachers. Unfortunately, by the time of the Mishna, this aspect was useless since so many "elite" people did not carefully keep it. Related to this, keeping it Oral kept a sacredness about it because it was closed off to the public.

If so, perhaps the reason why R' Eliezer was against teaching women Torah. One is that the woman was somehow asking a particularly disrespectful question - she was trying to bring down the sacredness. Even were this not so, women in the ancient world were not considered so smart or capable, and so if one taught women Torah, the Torah would lose its sacredness. Additionally, she could misunderstand what she learned because historically and sociologically, she was not trained in learning. Lastly, it would cause the Oral law to be spread out among the non-elite, especially women who were not able or considered capable of being part of that elite class.

However, we might say that this would not at all apply today. Now that the Torah is written down, and now that all have access if they want, both men and women, there is no reason to "burn the Torah".