Skip to content

Women in the Public Sphere: The Positions of Sipre Deuteronomy Viewed against the Matrix of the Hebrew Bible and Other Rabbinic Texts


Pages 279 - 294

DOI https://doi.org/10.13173/zeitaltobiblrech.23.2017.0279




Ariel

1 The literature on the variegated depiction of women and their status in this period is voluminous; see, inter alios, S. Japhet, “The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scroll's Attitude Toward Sexual Impurity and Its Biblical Precedents,” JANES 22 (1993), 69–87, T.C. Eskenazi, “Out from the Shadows: Biblical Women in the Postexilic Era,” JSOT 54 (1992), 25–43; A. Labahn and E. Ben Zvi, “Observations on Women in the Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9,” Biblica 84 (2003), 457–78. For the late(r) Second Temple period, see R. Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), S.R. Garrett, “The ‘Weaker Sex’ in the Testament of Job,” JBL 112 (1993), 55–70, C.A. Brown, No Longer Be Silent (Louisville, KY: Westminster and John Knox Press, 1992); A.J. Levine, ed., “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 83–106; B. Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 9–31; M.R. D'Angelo, “Women in Luke-Acts: A Redactional View,” JBL 109 (1990), T. Ilan, “The Attraction of Aristocratic Women to Pharisaism During the Second Temple Period,” HTR 88 (1995), 31–33, idem, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995); P. Machinist, “Job's Daughters and Their Inheritance in the Testament of Job and its Biblical Congeners,” in W.G. Dever and J.E. Wright, eds., The Echoes of Many Texts: Reflections on Jewish and Christian Traditions in Honor of Lou H. Silberman (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 67–80, K. Atkinson, “Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Evidence for a Qumran Renaissance During the Reign of Queen Salome Alexandra,” The Qumran Chronicle 11 (2003), 37–56; P.W. Skehan and A.A. DiLella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 90–93, J.J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 66–72, L.J. Archer, “The Role of Jewish Women in the Religion, Ritual and Cult of Graeco-Roman Palestine,” A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt, eds., Images of Women in Antiquity (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1985), 273–87, D. Rothstein, “Women's Testimony at Qumran: The Biblical and Second Temple Evidence,” RevQ 21 (2004), 597–614, and R.A. Kugler, “On Women and Honor in the Testament of Job,” JSP 14 (2004), 43–62. See, also, J.A. Schroeder, Deborah's Daughters: Gender Politics and Biblical Interpretation (New York: Oxford University, 2014), which examines constructions of feminine power and authority in late antiquity and the medieval period.

2 Among the numerous studies reflecting this diversity, see S. Japhet, “The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scroll's Attitude Toward Sexual Impurity and Its Biblical Precedents,” JANES 22 (1993), 69–87, T.C. Eskenazi, “Out from the Shadows: Biblical Women in the Postexilic Era,” JSOT 54 (1992), 25–43; A. Labahn and E. Ben Zvi, “Observations on Women in the Genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1–9,” Biblica 84 (2003), 457–78. For the late Second Temple period, see R. Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Women's Religions among Pagans, Jews and Christians in the Greco-Roman World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), S.R. Garrett, “The ‘Weaker Sex’ in the Testament of Job,” JBL 112 (1993), 55–70, C.A. Brown, No Longer Be Silent (Louisville, KY: Westminster and John Knox Press, 1992); A.J. Levine, ed., “Women Like This”: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 83–106; idem, “The First Woman, Wives and Mothers in Jubilees,” JBL 113 (1994), 609–26; idem, The Empowerment of Women in Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 9–31; M.R. D'Angelo, “Women in Luke-Acts: A Redactional View,” JBL 109 (1990), T. Ilan, “The Attraction of Aristocratic Women to Pharisaism During the Second Temple Period,” HTR 88 (1995), 31–33, idem, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine: An Inquiry into Image and Status (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995); P. Machinist, “Job's Daughters and Their Inheritance in the Testament of Job and its Biblical Congeners,” in W.G. Dever and J.E. Wright, eds., The Echoes of Many Texts: Reflections on Jewish and Christian Traditions in Honor of Lou H. Silberman (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 67–80, K. Atkinson, “Women in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Evidence for a Qumran Renaissance During the Reign of Queen Salome Alexandra,” The Qumran Chronicle 11 (2003), 37–56; P.W. Skehan and A.A. DiLella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira, AB 39 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), 90–93, J.J. Collins, Jewish Wisdom in the Hellenistic Age, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 66–72, D. Rothstein, “Women's Testimony at Qumran: The Biblical and Second Temple Evidence,” RevQ 21 (2004), 597–614, and R.A. Kugler, “On Women and Honor in the Testament of Job,” JSP 14 (2004), 43–62. See n. 80 below.

3 See, e.g., the numerous studies by Ch. Safrai, A. Schremer, Sh. Valler, and J. Hauptman.

4 J. Neusner has summarized this work's position(s) on women with the pithy remark, “Nothing relevant to this issue comes to hand” (The Canonical History of Ideas, The Place of the So-called Tannaite Midrashim: Mekhilta Attributed to R. Ishmael, Sifra, Sifre to Numbers, and Sifre to Deuteronomy, South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990], 157). For a critique of this work and its views regarding the provenance of the “tannaitic” midrashim, see D. Boyarin, “On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim,” JAOS 112 (1992), 455–65. For other discussions of the early provenance of the tannaitic midrashim, see M. Kahana, “The Critical Editions of Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael in Light of the Geniza Fragments,” Tarbiz 55 (1985), 515–52 (Hebrew), and S. Naeh, “The Structure and Division of Torat Kohanim: (A) Scrolls,” Tarbiz 66 (1997), 483–515 (Hebrew). For discussion of broader issues, see S.D. Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and its Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy (Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1991), and, idem, “Sifre Deuteronomy 26 (ad Deut. 3:23): How Conscious the Composition?,” HUCA 54 (1983), 245–301.

5 J.A. Berman has recently argued that the Hebrew Bible is characterized by a generally egalitarian approach; see Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). Cf. the critique of S. Ackerman, “Only Men are Created Equal,” in S.Olyan, “In Conversation with Joshua A. Berman Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought” (2008) JHS 10 (2010; online), 14–27. While bearing on the overall depiction of women's status in the Hebrew Bible — and Deuteronomy, in particular — the specific issues addressed by Berman and Ackerman do not, however, involve the subject matter addressed in the present essay.

6 See, also, E.P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM Press, 1990), 329–30, cited by Boyarin, “On the Status,” 460, n. 4.

7 For recent discussion of this passage, see B.M. Levinson, “The Reconceptualization of Kingship in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History's Transformation of Torah,” VT 51 (2001), 511–34, and P. Dutcher—Wallsz, “The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16–17 in its Ancient Social Context,” JBL 121 (2002), 601–616.

8 Translations of biblical passages, unless otherwise indicated, follows NJPS. The translation of Deut 17:15 cited herein would not have been accepted by those rabbinic tridents who viewed the appointment of a monarch as mandatory, rather than a concession granted to Israel; see Sipre Deut 156, and b. Sanh. 20b.

9 See, e.g., C. Smith, “‘Queenship’ in Israel? The Cases of Bathsheba, Jezebel and Athaliah,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, JSOTSup 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 142–62. Given the negative portrayal of these women in the Hebrew Bible it is hardly surprising that Sipre adopts the position discussed herein. Even so, there is no indication that this was the main consideration informing Sipre's position. For further discussion of the biblical (and ancient Near Eastern) portrayal of women as monarchs/queens, see H.J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 329–81.

10 See the sources cited in D. Golinkin, The Status of Women in Jewish Law: Responsa (Jerusalem: The Center for Women in Jewish Law, 2001), 217 (Hebrew), and Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: Book of Shoftim (S. Frenkel, ed.; Jerusalem/Bnei Brak: Bnei Yosef 1998), “Laws of Kings,” 540–41. Note, also, the important distinction between b. Ber. 49a and Sipre's formulation (ibid.)

11 At the same time, it is noteworthy that other (admittedly, much earlier) ancient Near Eastern sources indicate discomfort with the notion of women serving as rulers. Thus, e.g., Sumerian sources, while acknowledging the power vested in female monarchs, maintain that the ascent of a woman to the throne portends misfortune; see, e.g., M. Malul, Knowledge, Control and Sex: Studies in Biblical Thought, Culture and Worldview (Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publication, 2002).

12 See, inter alios, H.D. HaLevi, “אשה ברשות מקומית לאור ההלכ,” in Y. Cohen, ed., נשים בהנהגת הציבור (Jerusalem: HaKibbutz HaDati, 1991), 88; see, also, Sipra, Behuqqotai 1:1, and Sipre Deut 42. Admittedly, it is less than fully clear how this last passage is to be reconciled with Sipre Deut 157.

13 See S.D. Fraade, who renders the lexeme “communal administrators” (“The Torah of the King [Deut 17:14-20] in the Temple Scroll and Early Rabbinic Law,” in J.R. Davila, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls as Background to Postbiblical Judaism and Early Christianity [Brill: Leiden, 2003], 51-3, and n. 74); see, also, G.J. Blidstein, Political Concepts in Maimonidean Halakha (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2001), 72–73 (Hebrew).

14 See Mishneh Torah, “Laws of Kings,” 1:5.

15 This point was noted by many talmudists and legists; see Golinkin, Status of Women in Jewish Law, 214–8; cf. Horovitz-Finkelstein, Siphre ad Deuteronomium, 209, n. 7.

16 See, e.g., the divergent views of Z. Ben-Barak, “The Queen Consort and the Struggle for Succession to the Throne,” La Femme dans le Proche-Orient antique, eds. J.-M. Durand, et al. (Compte rendu de la XXXIIIe Recontre assyriologique internationale [paris, 7-10 juillet 1986]), 33–40, and idem, “The Status and Right of the Gebira,” JBL 110 (1991), 23-34, and S. Ackerman, “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel,” JBL 112 (1993), 385–401. For a review of the scholarly positions on this matter, see Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 360–70.

17 See above, n. 8. Others argued that while a woman could not be appointed to fill a public position, she could, nevertheless, inherit various public positions, including the throne (J. Babad, Minhat Hinnukh, #497, and Y. Landa, Noda’ biYehudah, Hoshen Misphat 1). Regarding the possibility of inheriting communal positions, see Blidstein, Political Concepts in Maimonidean Halakha, 72–77, and Fraade, “Torah of the King,” 52–53.

18 See Fraade, “Torah of the King,” 52. For broader discussion of this issue, see M.L. Chernick, “‘Ish’ as Man and Adult in the Halakic Midrashim,” JQR 73 (1980), 254–80, and Ch. Safrai, “The Reading איש (man): The Exclusion/Inclusion of Women in Tannaic Midrashim and the LXX,” M. Karrer and W. Kraus, eds., Die Septuaginta - Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (Tübingen” Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 728–37.

19 See J.M. Baumgarten, “The Cave 4 Versions of the Qumran Penal Code,” JJS 43 (1992), 270.

20 V.A. Hurowitz, “רוקמה in Damascus Document 4QDe (4Q270) 7 i 14,” DSD 9 (2002), 34–7. Conceivably, this rendering, if correct, might indicate that women were not granted the right to speak in public forums; see the following section.

21 See The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated: The Qumran Texts in English [Leiden: Brill, 1994], 66).

22 See “rwqmh in the Damascus Document and Ps 139:15,” in Diggers at the Well. Proceedings of a Third International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, eds. T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2000), 65–83. Note that Garcia Martinez's approach would appear to imply a social situation largely similar to that entailed by Elwolde's rendering; it may, however, reflect an even more restrictive view of women. A similar, but not identical, approach is to view the text as reflecting the fact that women were not included in the yearly hierarchical “review” of the Qumran community's membership. See, also, S. White Crawford, “Mothers, Sisters, and Elders: Titles for Women in Second Temple Jewish and Early Christian Communities,” in Davila, Dead Sea Scrolls, 177–91.

23 For broader discussion of women's status in various socio-religious spheres, see Økland, J. Women in their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004)

24 It bears recalling that Jubilees presents an enhanced role for the patriarchal wives and, by extension, all Israelite wives (see, especially, B. Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women [Leiden: Brill, 1999]). If the author of 4Q270 shared a similarly positive view of wives' roles, the resulting picture would be one in which women enjoy a good deal of parity in their spousal relationships, but a significantly diminished role in public affairs. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing what 4Q270's position would have been with regard to Jubilees' depiction of spousal relationships.

25 It ought be acknowledged, however, that the appellation “mothers” may reflect some sort of public role, though precisely what kind is hardly clear. Now, the term “father” bears in the Hebrew Bible the meaning “mentor, pedagogue,” as in, e.g., 2Kgs 2:12-14 and, possibly, Gen 45:8. It is quite possible, therefore, that “fathers” and “mothers” in 4Q270 denote mentors or religious guides of some sort; this does necessarily entail a formal position of leadership, or the like. On the other hand, the term “father” appears in Second Temple texts as well as later targumic passages where it denotes a high-ranking appointee or confidant of the king; see, 1Macc 11:32-33, (Greek) addition B to Esth, v. 7, Second Targum to Esth 7:9 (and, possibly, Gen 45:8), and the discussion by E. Bickerman, Institutions des Séleucides (Paris: Guethner, 1938), 42–43. This, of course, suggests that the term “mothers” may also denote some office of authority. Nonetheless, the statement that women have no “רוקמה” in the community would clearly suggest that the former interpretation is closer to the intended meaning of 4Q270.

26 See B.J. Casper, “To Keep Silent, Ask Husbands at Home, and not to Have Authority over Men (I Corinthians 14:33-36 and I Timothy 2:11-12). The Transition from Gathering in Private to Meeting in Public Space in Second Generation Christianity and the Exclusion of Women from Leadership of the Public Assembly. Part 1,” TZ 61 (2005), 113-31, and “Part 2,” TZ 61 (2005), 301-19. While arguing that women enjoyed a more active role at the outset of the nascent Christian movement, Casper argues that “Ultimately, however, the conventional location of Christian worship in public space excluded women from leadership roles which applied to the whole Christian congregation” (ibid., 319). See, also, G.J. Brooke, “Between Qumran and Corinth: Embroidered Allusions to Women's Authority,” in Dead Sea Scrolls as Background, 157-76, especially, 166-75. Of particular interest for the present discussion is the fact that “ἐξουςία” bears the meaning “authority, power” but, in fact, reflects the role of a veil/head-covering as a sign of such subordination. (For the ancient Near Eastern background, see K. van der Toorn, “The Significance of the Veil in the Ancient Bear East,” in D.P. Wright, et al. eds., Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995], 327-39.) Note that Josephus also requires that women be submissive to men, explaining that “authority (χρατóς) has been given by God to the man” (Contra Apion 2:201). See, further, the following section of this essay.

27 See the textual variants in Horovitz-Finkelstein, Sipre, 157 (p. 209, textual note to l. 6), and discussion thereof in the sources cited in Golinkin, Status of Women, 217. The reading preserved in the commentary of R. Moses David Abraham Troyes to Sipre Deuteronomy reads: “אין ממנים אותו פרנס על הציבור”; the referent of “אותו” is, clearly, the “נכרי”. See, also, the reading of R. Elijah of Vilna, ad loc.

28 See, also, Yalqut Shim'oni, vol. 1, par. 913, for a variation of this position.

29 Note that the reading of ms Assemani precluding the possibility of women as appointed public officials also entails, a fortiori, the proscription of women as monarchs. However, if the reading reflected in other editions and commentators is adopted, it remains possible, if nonetheless strained, to interpret the first passage not as proscribing the appointment of women as monarchs but, as noted above, as meaning that appointment of women does not constitute fulfillment of the commandment/miswah to appoint a monarch. On this reading, then, Sipre's distinction between men's and women's ability to serve in public positions would be very limited in scope.

30 B. Brooten has examined the role of women as communal leaders in late antiquity (Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue, Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues [Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982]), as has Z. Safrai, (הקהילה היהודית בארץ ישראל בתקופת המשנה והתלמוד [Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1984], especially 282-84). It is uncertain, however, to what extent these data reflect a rabbini-cally-oriented society; more specifically, it is clear that the author of Sipre Deuteronomy would not have endorsed the role of women tolerated by other segments of “rabbinic” society. For a discussion of a related issue - viz., the depiction of Deborah the judge/prophetess in various Jewish and Christian sources of late antiquity - see J.A. Schroeder, Deborah's Daughters: Gender Politics and Biblical Interpretation (New York: Oxford University, 2014). Schroeder examines constructions of feminine power and authority (particularly as personified by Deborah) in the medieval period as well late antiquity.

31 See, Burnside, The Signs of Sin: Seriousness of Offence in Biblical Law, JSOTSup 364 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 147–54; see, also, Sipre Deut 235, and Tg. Ps.-J. ad Deut 22:21.

32 See Horovitz-Finkelstein, 269, textual note to l. 1. This reading is also attested in the most mss of the commentary of Rashi ad Deut 22:16; ms Rome, however, reads “לפני”. See the discussion below.

33 It is possible, but far from certain, that on this reading the passage means that a woman must/ought not speak in the presence of a man, at least in matters of a public nature. That is, the term may apply either to her husband (in which case in probably means that the wife must not speak in his place) or, quite possibly, men other than her husband. Note that the passage does not read “אישה/בעלה [במקום],” which would limit the passage's implications to the matter of a wife's conduct vis-à-vis her husband; see the view of R. Joseph Bekhor Shor, below.

34 See Sipre Deut 235,237,239, Tg. Ps.-J. ad Deut 22:15, b. Ket. 46a.

35 On a related note, it ought be recalled that Deut 25:7 legislates that in the case of a levir who refuses to perform his obligation, the wife of the deceased is to come forth and initiate proceedings against the levir. Presumably, the author of Sipre would argue that the woman's public participation is mandatory simply because there is no realistic alternative, given her role in both levirate marriage and the halisah proceedings.

36 See T. Frymer-Kensky, “Virginity in the Bible,” in V.H. Matthews, et al., eds., Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, JSOTSup 262 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 94–5, concerning the family's involvement with the virginal sheet according to Deuteronomy and ancient Near Eastern practice. For a broader discussion of women's role in the deuteronomic laws generally, see C. Pressler, The View of Women Found in the Deuteronomic Family Laws, BZAW 216 (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1993). In particular, Pressler notes that with the possible exception of (the status of the woman in) 2Kgs 8:1-6, all the texts depicting women initiating legal hearings in the Hebrew Bible involve non-married women (ibid., 74, n. 42). It is possible that Sipre's position has been informed by a similar observation, though this is hardly certain; in any event, it is noteworthy that the Hebrew Bible preserves no general prescriptive norm along these lines. Moreover, if, as discussed below, the intent of Sipre Deuteronomy is that the accused girl, herself, ought not speak before/in the presence of her father, it is clear that Sipre has gone far beyond the instances noted by Pressler, none of which poses a threat to the woman's life. For a very different understanding of the “cloth” intended by Deut 22:17, and the entire pericope, see Burnside, Signs of Sin, 140–52.

37 See, e.g., the commentary of Nahmanides ad Deut 22:17, who adds the observation that it is the father (rather than the mother or daughter) who constitutes the legal party to the suit, inasmuch as the fine imposed on the newly married husband (should the latter's claim prove false) is paid to the girl's father (Deut 22:19). It is noteworthy that, while emphasizing that the only reason for the mother to appear before the elders concerns her role with the virginal sheet, Nahmanides makes no mention of Sipre's restriction of women's role in the proceedings. Cf. Sipre Deut 235, which, after stating that either parent alone may initiate the defense on behalf of their daughter, explains Deuteronomy's reference to both parents as follows: “they who raised ‘bad crops’ (גידוליהם) ought come and be disgraced along with their ‘crops’”.

38 See Burnside, Signs of Sin, 147-53, and B. Wells, “Sex, Lies, and Virginal Rape: The Slandered Bride and False Accusation in Deuteronomy,” JBL 124 (2005), 54–55.

39 See, further, C.H.J. de Geus, “The City of Women: Women's Place in Ancient Israelite Cities,” VT 61 (1995), 75–86.

40 See Sipre Deut 235. Second Temple works reflect a state of affairs akin to those preserved in the Hebrew Bible; see, e.g., Jubilees 19:10, 30:7, and 4Q271.3. To be sure, rabbinic sources acknowledge the authority of mothers (and older brother) to give the daughter (or, sister) in marriage to another; this, however, is viewed as a rabbinic innovation, not Torah law; see m. Sot. 3:8, Mekh dR Ishmael, Neziqin, par. 3, b. Yeb. 107b, and b. Sot. 23b.

41 Indeed, this very datum highlights the anomalous nature of Sipre's comment. Since, according to the rabbis, it is only the father who is empowered to marry off his (minor) daughter, it is most natural that it is he who claims before the court “I gave my daughter to this man”; if so, Sipre's interpretation of v. 15 as teaching the view that a woman is not entitled to speak before a man would appear to be superfluous. See, further, R. Moses David Abraham Troyes Ashkenazi, Toledot Adam, ad loc.

42 See R. Elijah Mizrahi (Perush ha-Mizrahi), ad Rashi, Deut 22:16, as well as R. Judah Löwy, Gur Aryeh, ad Rashi, Deut 22:16, and the comment of A.Y.Z. Lichtstein (Zera’ Avraham), ad Sipre Deut 235. Note that these commentators do not indicate whether they understand Sipre's passage to refer to the issue of women speaking “in place of/before” or “in the presence of” men; it would seem likely, however, that the former interpretation is intended. Cf. the observation of Wells (above, n. 39).

43 A biblical passage that does present women pleading their own case is the narrative of the two prostitutes who appeared before Solomon (1Kgs 3:16–27). Unfortunately, there is no way of ascertaining how this story was reconciled with this latter understanding of Sipre's position. One ancient text which specifically involves the case of an accused woman (contending with male witnesses) is the LXX addition to the book of Daniel, Susanna. While this text does state that the accused came before the elders accompanied by her parents, children, and relatives (v. 30) — or, according to Theodotion, a different assortment of family members and individuals — there is no mention of her defense plea; she prays for heavenly assistance, but makes no attempt at impeaching her witnesses. There is, of course, no way of establishing the reason for her silence (or of that of family members), i.e., whether this reflects some legal restriction of her role, her lack of legal expertise, or some other factor. Note, moreover, that these texts do not involve women who are still subject to the father's jurisdiction. See above, n. 35.

44 Note that numerous societies worldwide have are known to have placed restrictions on women's right to speak in public and, in particular, their right to participate in judicial (and civil) matters. Indeed, even the seemingly well-attested participation of women in the ancient Near East (e.g., Mesopotamia, Elephantine) was most likely limited to a select few, whose special status constituted the exception to the rule. For a broad treatment of women’ legal status in the ancient Near East, and Mesopotamia, in particular, see E. Meier Tetlow, Women, Crime, and Punishment in Ancient Law and Scoiety: Volume 1, The Ancient Near East (New York: Continuum International Publishing, 2004). Viewed against this state of affairs, the evidence of Sipre Deuteronomy is hardly surprising. This datum, however, does not affect the clearly different positions of Sipre and other rabbinic compositions.

45 Interestingly, in an attempt to reconcile Sipre's position with Deut 21:20, wherein the mother participates in filing the legal claims against her son, N.Z.Y. Berlin proposed that Sipre's authors distinguished between situations in which the mother's participation was not essential to the proceedings (i.e., the slandered bride) inasmuch as it is the witnesses (on the rabbinic interpretation of this passage) that ultimately determine the bride's fate. By contrast, in the case of the rebellious son, where the testimony/claim of both parents plays a decisive role in the proceedings, the mother is permitted (and required) to speak; see עמק הנצי”ב ad Sipre 235.

46 See the discussion of 1Cor 14, below.

47 See J.L. Levy, ed., (פירושי התורה לרבינו לוי בן גרשום (רלב”ג (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 2000), vol. 5, 222, and the editor's comment to Deut 22:16.

48 Note that it is unclear whether Gersonides understood this restriction as applying to non-judicial public settings, though this would seem to be implied by his explanation.

49 See, also, the commentary of the twelfth-century French exegete, R. Joseph Bekhor Shor, ad Deut 22:16, who adopts a position very similar to that adopted by the later Gersonides. An interesting difference between the two concerns Bekhor Shor's citation of Sipre, wherein the passage reads: “מכאן שאין אשה רשאה לדבר בפני בעלה (a woman is not permitted to speak in the presence [i.e., in place of] her husband)”. The difficulty of harmonizing this reading with concern for the wife's welfare is glaring, the position of Joseph Bekhor Shor notwithstanding.

50 It is not my intention to claim that b.'s position represents that of the mishnaic corpus (or any position of tannaitic provenance); indeed, as noted, this corpus is entirely reticent on the matter. Rather, my point is that even where a similar issue is addressed in (albeit) later rabbinic discussions (in this instance of Babylonian provenance), the explanation offered for women's appearance in a court of law is markedly different from that of Sipre Deuteronomy.

51 See, e.g., Menahem b. Solomon Ha-Meiri (Bet ha-Behirah), ad b. Yeb. 100a., and the formulation of Maimonides, “Laws of the Sanhedrin,” 21:6. Although it is, theoretically, possible that the term alludes to the disgrace of the court/magistrates, rather than the woman, the context of b. Yeb. 100a favors the former interpretation. For other rabbinic rulings wherein women's sense of modesty/shame is more explicitly invoked as a criterion, see Talmudic Encyclopedia (Jerusalem: Talmudic Encyclopedia Institute, 1976), vol. 2, 254 (Hebrew). See, also, b. Šebu. 30a, which alludes to the fact that a woman's appearance in court for the purpose of rendering testimony may violate the spirit of Ps 45:14, and the comment of the Tosafists, ad loc., s.v. “כל”; see, further, the following notes.

52 Indeed, it is interesting to note that post-talmudic authorities were divided, on the basis of their understanding of b. Šebu. 30a and other pericopae in b., regarding the right of women not to appear in court -i.e., to be represented by their husbands - in connection with financial claims made by, or against, them. Some authorities allowed husbands to function as proxies for their wives, while others did not; see the medieval commentaries to b. Šebu. 30a, and see b. Git. 46a. It bears emphasizing that neither school maintained that woman are barred from representing themselves.

53 Cf. P.J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (As-sen/Maastricht and Minneapolis: Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 1990), 134, n. 214, who misconstrues the meaning and context of pisqa 235.

54 On a related note, it ought be observed that the precise legal force of the expression “אין רשות” is unclear: does this indicate that the courts would not allow the woman to speak in place/in the presence of “the man”?

55 Compare, e.g., the observations of B. Brooten concerning the leadership roles by women in ancient synagogues (Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue). Though not specifically discussed in Sipre Deuteronomy, it is difficult to imagine this composition sanctioning such a practice.

56 Cf. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 137. Note, also, that Tomson avers that the “Law” mentioned herein refers to the creation narrative in Gen 1–3 (see ibid., and 1Tim 2:13–14). While Gen 3:16 certainly suggests woman's secondary status in some (spousal) matters, might it, nonetheless, be possible that the New Testament sources also reflect a tradition surrounding the interpretation of Deut 22:16 similar to that preserved in Sipre Deuteronomy? Of course, it is also possible that 1Corinthians and Sipre Deuteronomy reflect the same basic socio-legal tradition while presupposing different scriptural proof-texts.

57 Paul and the Jewish Law, 137. See, also, Casper, “To Keep Silent,” especially 301–305.

58 The presence of women at deliberations concerning ritual practice may be attested at Qumran, as well, though the extant evidence is nebulous; see, inter alios, J.M. Baumgarten, “On the Testimony of Women in 1QSa,” JBL 76 (1957), 266–269, and cf. Rothstein, “Women's Testimony”.

59 For a recent discussion of the passage in Corinthians, see T. Paige, “The Social Matrix of Women's Speech at Corinth: The Context and Meaning of the Command to Silence in Corinthians 14:33b–36,” BBR 12 (2002), 217–42. See, also, Brooke, “Between Qumran and Corinth”. For discussion of women's legal status in the Roman west, see T.J. Calpino, Women, Work and Leadership in Acts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), especially 120–2.

60 Note that if Hurowitz's interpretation of 4Q270, discussed above, is correct, it would seem to afford a neat parallel to Sipre's position, though, again, the scope of the restriction on women in 4Q270 is far from clear. Specifically, does it refer to public study sessions, judicial settings, or some other social context? Similarly, it is unclear whether this formulation (according to Hurowitz) would disqualify women as witnesses; see the conclusion, below, and Rothstein, “Testimony of Women,” 605–06.

61 As noted, Maimonides does not codify the position of pisqa 235 (nor do later codifiers). This is particularly interesting in light of Maimonides's generally restrictive position on matters pertaining to women's presence in the public domain; see M.A. Friedman, “The Ethics of Medieval Jewish Marriage,” in S.D. Goitein, ed., Religion in a Religious Age (Cambridge, MA: Association for Jewish Studies, 1974), 88–95. While Friedman attributes Maimonides's stringent position regarding women to Muslim influence, it is worth noting that the spirit of Sipre Deut 235 is fully consistent with Maimonides's general approach and may have informed his overall position. Note, also, that Jewish writings of the Graeco-Roman world reflect similar views concerning women's place in the home (see, e.g., Philo, Special Laws, 3:169–72, and above, n. 1); see, further, the revealing comments of Qimhi to Ps 128:3.

62 The matter of women's rights and status in Deuteronomy has been the subject of recent discussion; see, inter alios, E. Otto, “False Weights in the Scales of Justice? Different Views of Women from Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy,” in Gender and Law, 128–46, and H.C. Washington, “‘Lest He Die in the Battle and Another Man Take Her’: Violence and the Construction of Gender in the Laws of Deuteronomy 20–22,” in Gender and Law, 208–12, and de Geus, “City of Women”. See, also, n. 60, below.

63 For discussion of the status of women as witnesses at Qumran, see Rothstein, “Women's Testimony”.

64 Indeed, it is possible, theoretically, to interpret Šebu. 4:1 as meaning that women are not required to testify, not that they are disqualified from so doing; see the discussion of this mishnah at b. Šebu. 30a, and the fourteenth-century legal code, Arba'ah Turim (Hoshen Mishpat, para. 35), which does not mention the disqualification of women. Admittedly, b.'s reasoning would appear to assume that were women permitted to testify, they would, eo ipso, be required to do so. This (implicit) legal reasoning is cogent; nonetheless, it is hardly certain that this principle is presupposed by m. Šebu. 4:1. Note, further, that m. Sanh. 3:3–5, which lists those disqualified from rendering testimony (for a variety of reasons), makes no mention of women.

65 The difficulty of establishing a clear biblical basis for this position is evident not only in the different explanations attested in Sipre Deuteronomy (and the parallel at y. Yoma 6:1 [43b]) and b. Šebu. 30a, but in the explanations of post-medieval authorities, as well; see, e.g., Maimonides, “Laws of Testimony,” 9:2, and the comments of J. Karo (Keseph Mishneh), thereto. For discussion of the exegetical considerations of the Qumran community, see Rothstein, “Women's Testimony”.

66 For a listing, see Talmudic Encyclopedia, 252–53.

67 See ibid.

68 It bears mention that E. Otto has argued that the family laws of Deuteronomy reveal concern for the welfare of women and their (improved) status to a degree not attested in other biblical legal corpora, e.g., Exodus; see “False Weights in the Scale of Biblical Justice? Different Views of Women from Patriarchal Hierarchy to Religious Equality in the Book of Deuteronomy,” B.M. Levinson, et al., eds., Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 128–46, especially, 140. If so, it is noteworthy that Sifre Deuteronomy, while not contradicting or undoing the precedents and formulations of Deuteronomy, would, nonetheless, appear to curtail aspects of women's status and independence.

69 See Ch Safrai and Z. Safrai, “To What Extent did the Rabbis Determine Public Norms? The Internal Evidence,” L.I. Levine and D.R. Schwartz, eds., Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 172–94.

70 See above, n. 3.

71 Note that the difference in provenance between Sipre Deuteronomy, on the one hand, and Sipre Numbers, on the other, was identified already by D.Z. Hoffmann (Zur Einleitung in die halachische Midraschim [Berlin: M. Drieser, 1888]); see, further, A. Yadin, “4QMMT, Rabbi Ishmael, and the Origins of Legal Midrash,” DSD 10 (2003), 132–3.

72 See S. Japhet, “The Prohibition of the Habitation of Women: The Temple Scroll's Attitude Toward Sexual Impurity and Its Biblical Precedents,” JANES 22 (1993), 69–87, and J. Kelso, O Mother, Where Art Thou? An Irigarayan Reading of the Book of Chronicles (London/Oakville, Conn: Equinox, 2008). See the following note. This claim must, of course, be viewed against the positive evaluation voiced in Labahn and Ben Zvi, “Observations” (above, n. 2).

73 See the positive evaluation voiced in Labahn and Ben Zvi, “Observations” (above, n. 2). I hope to address this issue more fully elsewhere. Relatedly, it bears mention that the absence of female witnesses in documents from Ugarit and Elephantine suggests (but does not conclusively prove) that women were not deemed acceptable as witnesses in these societies (see Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 678, 693, 695–96). If so, this may indicate that Sipre Deuteronomy does, indeed, preserve an ancient socio-legal norm, rather than attesting to a de novo creation. This point, however, has no bearing on the difference between the treatment of this issue in Sipre Deuteronomy and the mishanic corpus.

74 It ought be borne in mind that the date of Chronicles remains debated, with many scholars dating it to the early Hellenistic period. If this assessment is accepted, it begs the question as to the possible influence of Hellenistic views of women on Chronicles, a point which bears further inquiry.

75 See Casper, “To Keep Silent, Part 1” for a brief discussion of women's role in the public life of Graeco-Roman society.

76 See the view of E. Otto above, n. 68.

Share


Export Citation